The Unknown Loпkā Tradition and the Cultural Unconscious

Home , Baba Dharam Dass, Muhapatti, Stambha, Tapas (Indian religions)

The Unknown Loïkā Tradition and the Cultural Unconscious

PETER FLÜGEL

In the last two decades, the main focus of Jaina research has shifted from the effectively a-historical exploration of the language, content and form of the Śvetāmbara canon in particular, to the historical and anthropological investigation of “strategies of transmission” of tradition, including “canonisation” and “transformation” (Bruhn 1987: 107f.). The guiding question in this research is how to conceptualise the relationship between continuity and change within the “Jaina tradition” (Carrithers 1990: 142). The investigation of this question became imperative after the philological de- construction of earlier notions of a Jaina “ur-canon” and the “dog- matic immutability” of the Jaina doctrine (Bruhn 1987: 104, 107), as a consequence of which even the core principles of “true Jain- ism” (Dundas 1993: 253) and the term “Jaina” itself (Flügel 2005: 2-5) became problematic.

THE PRESENT IN THE PAST In current academic studies, the history of the Jaina tradition is pre- dominately presented as an interactive process between texts and practices through time (Cort 1990: 59). The emphasis is on the continuity of canonical histories, monastic traditions, and religious properties,1 which offer alternative points of connection for the for-

1 See the empirical studies on Jain laity in Carrithers & Humphrey 1991. 182 PETER FLÜGEL mation of variable group identities. In this model, scripture,2 lineal descent, and the direct link to a charismatic teacher function as alternative sources of authority and legitimation as Granoff (1991: 76f.; 1993: 315), Dundas (1993: 250), Qvarnström (1998: 33f., 46) and Balbir (2003a: 267-269) have shown in their studies of late medieval Jaina sectarian traditions. Practice is not seen anymore as a mere enactment of rules, but also as an impetus for re-interpretation of rules or for the creation of new rules. Examples of such processes are particularly visible in the context of sectarian rivalry “expressing the stiffening of group identity, rather than the perse- vering of an archaic tradition” (Balbir 2003a: 267). Neither textual traditions nor descent constructs are now seen as static, despite the fact that innovations are within the Jaina tradition commonly introduced as “views well-rooted in the scriptural tradition” (Balbir 2003a: 263). Although earlier views of the unchanging nature of the principal features of Jainism are being replaced by this new approach, the dominant lines of influence still run from the past to the present, from text to practice. Yet, with growing historical and ethnogra- phical information, it seems both possible and necessary to reverse the perspective. After all, in any situation, the choice is not whether to obey or to disobey transmitted rules, but which rule to obey, as the anthropologists M. Gluckman and E. Leach both noted.3 In the Jaina context, this is a truism. The amorphous nature of the canonical scriptures alone, not to mention the commentaries and imports from non-Jain traditions, forces strategies of selection and reduction of complexity on everyone who refers to them, even disregard- ing instrumental interests. The question is not whether to obey or to disobey the scriptures, but which scripture to obey, and how to interpret it.

2 Used in a wider sense, including commentary, and ritual literature. 3 See Bloch 1989: 5; Bourdieu 1992: 53. See also Carrithers’ (2000: 834) investigation of eclecticism or “polytropy” in the Jain tradition. The Unknown Loïkā 183

W. C. Smith’s (1962/1991: 168) concept of “cumulative tradition” already highlighted that “a tradition” presents itself not as an entity but as “a growing congeries of items” of diverse nature, which is only “unified in the conceptual mind, by processes of conceptual abstraction”. J. Assmann’s (2000: 39f.) notion of “cultural memory” covers similar ground. Yet, it puts less emphasis on processes of conscious transmission and re-vitalisation of a tradition through the faith of individual participants, as Smith’s notion does, or the selective instrumentalisation of the past through the “connective memory” of particular groups, as current reconstruc- tions of Jaina sectarian histories do, but focuses on the latent function of the entire “archive” (Derrida) of the amorphous “cultural unconscious”. In Assmann’s view, the interesting aspects of “cultural memory” are the forgotten, ignored, obsolete, hidden, excluded, suppressed or disrespected elements of a tradition, which are still accessible but unutilised and therefore “freely at one’s disposal”.4 The term “cultural memory” is wider than the term “tradition”, which in its restricted sense refers to a consciously constructed instrumentalisation of the past in terms of present needs and interests. Though inspired by Freud’s notions of repression and latency, the “cultural unconscious” in this sense must be distinguished both from inferred processes of “unconscious thought” and “deep motivations” (Goonasekere 1986: 7), and from spheres of value within the realm of ideology which are not systematically expressed (Laidlaw 1985: 51f.), and in this sense “unconscious” (Cort 1990: 60). It overlaps, however, with the sphere of pre-

4 Assmann 2000: 34. His definition contrasts “cultural memory”, based primarily on the medium of writing, with “communicative memory”, the social aspect of individual memory, and with “collective” and “connective memory”, which is primarily ritually constituted: “Das kulturelle Gedächtnis umfasst im Gegensatz zum kommunikativen Gedächtnis das Uralte, Abgelegte, Ausgelagerte und im Gegensatz zum kollektiven und Bindungsgedächtnis das Nichtinstrumentalisier- bare, Häretische, Subversive, Abgespaltene” (p. 41). He uses the term “unconscious transmission” (p. 40).

184 PETER FLÜGEL conscious habits, dispositions and practices (Bourdieu 1992: 52ff.) in a yet to be explored way. In this article, I will utilise this perspective for the analysis of the modern historiography of Loïkā and the Loïkāgaccha, by focusing on processes of canonisation and repression of memory, and on techniques of selective citation and re-combination of transmitted elements of the Jain tradition5 through which authority was claimed both by Loïkā and his successors and by modern authors who tried to establish Loïkā as an ancestral figure for competing factions of the aniconic Jaina tradition, which Loïkā is said to have founded on the basis of the scriptures alone. I will first explore the ways in which the teachings of Loïkā and the Loïkāgaccha tradition have been depicted in modern literature, and how the scant information on Loïkā was compiled and redacted by different interested parties, and then turn to some of the texts which have been attributed to Loïkā himself to delimit the scope of his influence on the still existing but ignored Loïkāgaccha tradition, which has lost all memory of its own past and on the Sthānakavāsī and Terāpanth traditions. I am not trying to solve the presently unanswerable question of the accuracy of the transmitted historical knowledge on Loïkā’s biography and beliefs but will focus primarily on the analysis of the effective history (Wirkungsgeschichte) of his ideas.6

THE UNKNOWN LOðKĀ The true nature of the biography and teachings of Loïkā is still disputed within the Jaina tradition, even now, more than five hundred

5 “Source quotations play an essential part in the demonstration” (Balbir 2003a: 263). Important in this context is J. Leslie’s distinction between authority and meaning (Leslie 2003: 74f.). Pioneering works on the use of quotations (uddharaõa) in the Jaina scriptures itself are the Berliner Konkordanz of K. Bruhn and C. B. Tripathi, and the recent publication of K. K. Jain (2003). The re-combination of elements always involves aspects of creative invention. 6 See Gadamer 1990: 305ff.; also Bruhn 1981: 18; 1987: 111; Gombrich 1988: 21. For an analysis of the institutional conditions of this history see also Flügel 2000; 2003a; forthcoming (c). The Unknown Loïkā 185

7 8 years after his death. It is commonly accepted that Luïkā or Loïkā was a layman who lived in Gujarāt sometime between 1415-1489. Because of his access to the Śvetāmbara scriptures, he was able to articulate a powerful, text-based critique of the laxity, śithilācāra, of contemporary Jaina mendicants, and to reject the prevailing practice of image-worship as “uncanonical”, since, in his view, it was predicated on violence and attachment to property.9 No consensus exists, however, on the nature of Loïkā’s influence on the formation of the aniconic mendicant traditions which emerged in the aftermath of his protest: the Loïkāgaccha tradition,10 which was founded by Bhāõā in the 1470s, and the Sthānakavāsī traditions, which were established in the early 17th century by different groups of dissenting sādhus of the Loïkāgaccha who objected to the re-emergence of image-worship within the tradition. Due to a lack of reliable sources,11 nothing certain can be said at present

7 On the history of research of the aniconic Śvetāmbara traditions see Flügel 2000: 40-46; Jain & Kumār 2003: 109-115. 8 Hastīmal (1995: 765) criticises that he is variously called Luüpaka (from luñerā, thief) or luïgā (from luccā, scoundrel), etc., by his opponents, rather than by his real name. Weber (1882: 807f.) and Mālvaõiyā (1965: 185) interpret luüpaka as the Sanskrit translation of luükā (lauükā), the “breaker” or “de- stroyer” of (the worship of) images, the creator of ruins. The real name of “Loïkā” remains unknown. The first text which mentions “Śāh” as the family name seems to be the Loïkāśāha Siloko, written in Saüvat 1600 (1543/4) by the Loïkāgaccha yati Keśavaçùi. 9 Mūrtipūjaka scholars such as Devagupta Sūri (1016 CE) of the Upakeśa- gaccha defined injury to living beings committed during the construction of temples and in the preparation of pūjā with flowers, fruits and water as a form of unavoidable or occupational violence (ārambhajā hiüsā) (Williams 1983: 66). Digambaras additionally use the term udyogī hiüsā, violence that is connected with a purposeful (religious) action. 10 Originally: “Jinamata”. 11 Apart from Deśāī’s ground-breaking survey of Gujarātī literature (1926-44), only two studies of an exploratory character are available to date on the meagre surviving textual material of the Loïkāgaccha yatis: Ālamśāh Khān 1965, and particularly Muni Kāntisāgara 1965. Judging on the basis of these sources, it appears that most texts of the Loïkāgaccha traditions are poems or songs of a hagiographic or biographical nature. Given their chronological precedence, it seems that the surviving Loïkāgaccha paññāvalīs, published by Hastīmal (1968), 186 PETER FLÜGEL about the biography of Loïkā, and even less about the early leaders of the Loïkāgaccha, although this may change in due course.12 The dearth of historical sources is a consequence both of the long-standing suppression of all but the most basic information concerning Loïkā by his opponents,13 and of the lack of interest in the creation and transmission of literature by the followers of Loïkā, who evidently were more concerned with the preservation of his basic ideas (Sinnpflege) than of the texts (Textpflege).14 Emptied of historical memory, the modern image of Loïkā can be painted in almost any colour, like contours on a white canvas. By the beginning of the 20th century, Loïkā was revered as an ancestral figure not only by the Loïkāgaccha traditions, but also by the rival Sthānakavāsī and Terāpanth traditions; each claiming to mani- fest his teaching in its purest form. The premise of this contest, that religious authority is conveyed not only by proper conduct in accordance with the prescriptions of the scriptures (siddhānta) but also by either lineal or direct spiritual descent (paramparā) from a prestigious ancestor,15 was not entirely new in the aniconic tradition.16 In addition to Mahāvīra, Loïkā is mentioned as a source of were composed on the basis of such earlier sources. See Flügel 2003a: 180f. Jñānsundar (1936: 27) rightly complained that the “unreliable” (apramāõika) paññāvalīs of the Loïkāgacchas do not contain any information on the doctrine of Loïkā or the Loïkāgacchas nor on their forms of organisation. 12 The surviving biographical sources on the Loïkāgaccha ascetics have not yet been studied. 13 The early Loïkāgaccha traditiond were opposed by local Mūrtipūjaka and Sthānakavāsī rivals, and to a lesser extent by Digambaras. References to Loïkā were, literally, erased from the few surviving manuscripts which could have been attributed to him (see picture on p. 278). Even today, Mūrtipūjaka libraries are often instructed by the ācāryas of their tradition not to permit access to materials relating to Loïkā. 14 See Assmann 1987 for the terms Sinnpflege and Textpflege. 15 As Dundas (1993: 253) pointed out, the Terāpanth did initially not refer to any predecessors and has still not published an official paññāvalī which constructs a direct line of succession back to Mahāvīra or another Tīrthaïkara. In this respect, the Terāpanthīs present themselves as direct disciples of Mahāvīra, like the Śramaõasaïgha. See Bhaõóārī 1937: 96; Flügel 2003a: 194ff. 16 See Balbir 2003a: 268f. The Unknown Loïkā 187 authority in almost all surviving old paññāvalīs of the Loïkāgaccha and Sthānakavāsī traditions. However, although they are amongst the earliest written documents of the tradition, the oldest Sthānaka- vāsī paññāvalīs cannot be dated much earlier than the beginning of the 19th century.17 Before the modern Jaina revival in the second half of the 19th century, the institutional structures of the aniconic traditions were very rudimentary and, within the five main lines of tradition, in a state of permanent flux. Instead of paññāvalīs, which trace the succession of group leaders, the dominant descent constructs were gurvāvalīs, that is lists which trace the guru-śiùya lineages, as documented in the colophons of the oldest surviving manuscripts which contain mostly biographical poems and songs.18 It seems, the perceived need for group organisation and ideological integration through elaborate descent constructs emerged in the Sthānakavāsī tradition only when, facing extinction under conditions of colonial domination, Hindu nationalism and sectarian rivalry, the quest for organisation, reform and competitive re- appropriation of the past had gained a new momentum.19 At the time, the sectarian struggle over the definition of the cultural memory of Loïkā was particularly intense between the Sthānakavāsīs and the reformed “Saüvegī” Tapāgaccha Mūrtipūja- kas. For the Mūrtipūjakas (and the Digambaras) Loïkā continued to be the prototypical heretic and one of the greatest threats to the survival of their own tradition. In an intriguing role-reversal, the Sthānakavāsīs and the Mūrtipūjakas re-enacted the ideological struggle between Loïkā (and the Loïkāgaccha) and his Mūrti- pūjaka opponents in the 15th century. Yet, the agenda had signifi-

17 Cf. Hastīmal 1968. The fact that the chronologies are relatively young may be seen as confirmation for the general view that the Sthānakavāsī muni Jeñhmal was the first to invoke Loïkā as the dharmaguru of his tradition in 1808. See infra. 18 On the form and function of paññāvalīs and gurvāvalīs see Flügel 2003a: 177-196. 19 Purification of the saïgha was already an established motive for institution building in the Śvetāmbara tradition. 188 PETER FLÜGEL cantly changed. At stake was not only the justification of image- worship on the part of the Mūrtipūjakas, but also the quest for legitimacy of a wide variety of new monastic orders and sectarian traditions which, by now, derived their religious identity directly from the layman Loïkā – either through descent constructs or through the acceptance of his interpretation of the scriptures. At the centre of the controversies were idiosyncratic points of the customary law, sāmācārī or maryādā, of the monastic traditions20 which are at the heart of the aniconic sects.21 Monastic customary law is multidimensional in both form and content. Usually it is transmitted in the form of hand-written lists of proclamations (bol) in vernacular prose, often only comprising quotes from the scriptures with or without commentary, but also in form of poems or question-and-answer texts (praśnottara). It regulates not only the conduct, but also the doctrinal outlook, organisation and liturgy of a particular group of mendicants.22 As such, it provides a crucial link between doctrine and practice, scripture and community, and is prone to processes of canonisation.23 A crucial point of contention between the Sthānakavāsī and the Mūrtipūjaka traditions was whether Loïkā himself formulated a list of instructions which led to the formation of the Loïkāgaccha, what exactly these instructions were, and how they related to the customs of the various contemporary Sthānakavāsī traditions. Currently, no records are

20 According to Dundas (1993: 248), one of the principal critics of the Loïkā tradition, the Mūrtipūjaka monk Dharmasāgara, rejected in his Pravacana- parīkùā the arbitrary basis of customary law with the remark that if custom were an acceptable criterion then even the views of the Loïkāgaccha would be acceptable. Jñānsundar (1936: 182) also distinguishes between the Jaina ājñā and Loïkā’s maryādā in order to devalue the latter. On the Jain maryādā literature see Flügel 2003b. 21 The foci for processes of identity formation of the image-worshipping sects are both mendicant orders and temples. 22 Balbir (2003a: 259; 2003b: 53) stresses the difference between “ethics” and “abstract ideas and concepts”. 23 On the problem of canonisation in the Jaina context see Bruhn 1987: 106.

The Unknown Loïkā 189 known on disputes about Loïkā’s teachings amongst Sthānakavāsīs and members of the Loïkāgaccha. The key question, to what extent the prescribed24 customary practices of the different aniconic traditions (and those of the Mūrti- pūjakas) actually coincided with canonical prescriptions, triggered a series of heated disputes, which peaked in the 1930s, at the height of the nationalist and religious revivalist movements in India. At the time, the Śvetāmbara revivalist movements competed vigorously with one another and with Hindu revivalist groups, such as the aniconic Ārya Samāj of Svāmī Dayānand Sarasvatī (1824-1883),25 and with Christian missionaries for support amongst the adherents of the traditional Jaina communities. Particularly virulent were the written exchanges between Sthānakavāsī mendicants and ex- Sthānakavāsī Mūrtipūjaka monks from the Pañjāb and Rājasthān, such as the polemicists Muni Buddhivijay (Būñerāy) (1807-1882),26 Ācārya Ātmārām (Vijayānand Sūri) (1837-1897)27 and his Gujarāt-

24 Observed behaviour of individual monks was generally not the key point of criticism. 25 See for instance Dayānand’s polemic against the Jains (1882/1908: 439ff.), which Śāstrī (1915) has also written about, the responses scattered throughout Ātmārām’s work (1882/1906: 1-162, etc.), and a text of the Sthānakavāsī sādhvī Pārvatī (1905b), who attacked Dayānand’s notions of god (īśvara) and karma based on the belief in liberation through transmigration. A vivid description of the exchanges from 1874 onwards can be found in P. L. Jain 1913/1923: 38ff. & II, 102-111. Farquhar (1915: 104) surmised that Dayānand’s inexplicable rejection of image-worship was influenced by the Sthānakavāsī example in his native Morvī state in Gujarāt. 26 See Būñerāy 1878. He was in 1831 initiated into the Sthānakavāsī Jīvarāja Malūkacandra Sampradāya in the Pañjāb. See Upādhyāya Ātmārām 1914: 57, n.; Duggar 1989: 338; Flügel 2000: 80, n. 78. 27 He was born in the Kùatriya family of the soldier Gaõeścandra Kapūr in the village Laharā in the Zīrā Tahasīl near Phīrozpur in the Pañjāb. After coming in close contact with Osvāl Sthānakavāsī Jains, he was initiated on 5.12.1853 (1910 mçgasār śukla 5) by the Sthānakavāsī muni Jīvaõrām (Jīvaõmal), who probably belonged to the Jīvarāja Gaïgarāma tradition. In 1874, he was re-initiated by the Mūrtipūjaka ācārya Buddhivijay (the ex-Sthānakavāsī monk Būñerāy) in Guja- rāt, and was given the name “Vijayānanda” when he became a sūri on 1.12.1886 (1943 mçgasār śukla 5). See Ātmārām 1900a: 72f.; Vallabhvijay 1902: 33-85; 1996: 4ff.; Flügel 2000: 60 (n. 42), 79. Further details on his group affiliations 190 PETER FLÜGEL born disciple Muni Vallabhvijay (1870-1953), who were amongst the driving forces of the revival of the upright (saüvegī) tradition of the Mūrtipūjaka Tapāgaccha in Gujarāt, which had to re-establish itself almost from scratch.28 One of the fiercest critics of the aniconic tradition in the 20th century, the (ex-Sthānakavāsī) Mūrti- 29 pūjaka muni Jñānsundar (1936: 131ff.), born in 1880 in Rajasthan, who attempted to revive the Upakeśagaccha, has argued that contemporary Sthānakavāsī intellectuals such as Ācārya Amolakçùi (1877-1936),30 Vāóilāl Moñīlāl Śāh (1878-1931), Muni Maõilāl (1849-1932?),31 and Muni Saubhāgyacandra “Santabāëa” (died 1981),32 who invoked Loïkā’s critique of image-worship both in their innovative historiography of Loïkā and in their polemics against the Mūrtipūjakas, had deliberately fabricated (kalpita) an artificial portrait of Loïkā as their common spiritual ancestor to promote the unification of the multiple strands of their divided tra- before leaving the Sthānakavāsīs, which are not entirely clear in his official biographies, have been highlighted in Mohanlāl Jain’s polemic Durvādī Mukha- Capeñikā (1892), which was summarised by P. L. Jain 1913/1923: 246-249. Accordingly, Ātmārām left his guru Jīvaõmal already in 1863 to study in Āgrā with Muni Ratnacandra of the Manoharadāsa Sampradāya. Thereafter, he returned to the Pañjāb and joined the Pañjāb Lavjīçùi Sampradāya of Ācārya Amarsiïha. In Vallabhvijay’s biography (1902: 52) it appears that despite his physical separation, Ātmārām did not formally cut his link with Jīvaõmal. 28 See Cort 2001: 46. 29 See the biographies by S. M. Jain (1929) and Guõsundar (1938). 30 See his monumental work Jaina Tattva Prakāś which was composed in 1903. The title of this not openly polemical text alludes to Ātmārām’s Jaina Tattva Ādarśa. See also Grantha Karttā kā Saïkùipt Jīvan Vçttānta by Kalyāõmal Corādiyā in Amolakçùi 1908/1920: 3. 31 His dates 1849-1932, cited in sources of the Līmbóī Nānī Pakù, are probably wrong, since he was still a young man in a photo published by Amarvijay 1908: 77f. Maõilāl’s 1934 work was criticised by the Annual General Meeting of the AISJC in Ahmedabad in 19.5.1936 as “insufficient”, because of its incom- pleteness and lack of proof. See Jaina Prakāśa 17.5.1936, p. 342, in Jñānsundar 1936: 16, n. 32 Saubhāgyacandra “Santabāëa” had publicised his views already in 1935 in the journal Jaina Prakāśa, the mouthpiece of the All India Sthānakavāsī Con- ference, and probably earlier in a book called Viśvavaüdya Prabhu Mahāvīr (Ed. Ghīrajlāl òokarśī Śāh), which is listed in Maõilāl’s bibliography (1934). The Unknown Loïkā 191 dition.33 According to Jñānsundar, who perceived a unified Sthāna- kavāsī Śramaõasaïgha as a threat to the revival of the Mūrtipūjaka tradition, there was not a shred of evidence for Loïkā’s instructions to his followers in the literature of Loïkāgaccha, the Sthānakavāsīs and the Terāpanthīs, except for one unspecific reference to Loïkā’s upadeśa in a Loïkāgaccha text which was composed thirty-eight or forty-six years after Loïkā’s death and could, in his view, therefore not be trusted.34 The critique of the “lack of evidence” in the Sthānakavāsi literature on Loïkā is a modern topos of the Mūrtipūjaka praśnottara literature. It was already articulated by Ātmārām (1884/1903) and repeated again by Jñānsundar (1936: 97) and Śeñh (1962: 342), to name but a few. Proof and evidence (pramāõa) are long-established criteria in Jaina scholasticism. However, the increasing influence of European historicism and academic jargon on modern Jaina vernacular historiographies cannot be underestimated.35 The Jainas encountered the power of “scientific truth” and of historical “facts and figures” first in the colonial courts of law in the 19th century.36 Its rhetoric quickly filtered into their internal sectarian and communal disputes soon after the introduction of the printing press and of modern means of communication and transportation which transformed Indian intellectual culture. Almost all printed

33 For details see Flügel 2000; 2003a. 34 Dayādharma Caupāī 11. The word upadeśa can also refer to Loïkā’s famous conversion of Lakhamsī which took place before the creation of the Loïkā order. It is true that no details or references are offered by V. M. Śāh (1909: 49ff.) or Saubhāgyacandra (1939: 77ff.). Jñānsundar (1936: 136) writes that there is also no evidence in Jeñhmal’s (1930) work Samakitsār: un meü in bātoü kā iśārā tak bhī nahīü kiyā hai. However, on page 14f. of this text a praśnottara of fifty-two questions which are attributed to Loïkā is published in Hindī, though no references to the original Ms. are given. The questions correspond to a list of fifty-four questions in a 17th-century text (K) attributed to Loïkā which was published by Mālvaõiyā (1963a: 80-82; 1964: 381). 35 See Cort 1995: 471, 491-494. 36 See for instance the report of Śāh (1909: 79) on the use of the courts to settle doctrinal disputes in 1822. 192 PETER FLÜGEL vernacular texts on Loïkā profess to be interested in history and often use scientific jargon. This does not mean that the texts are products of a scientific attitude, in the sense of Max Weber’s Wissenschaft als Beruf, with at least a notional commitment towards objectivity. Most vernacular historiographies to date are partisan and often polemical works which explicitly aim at in- fluencing the present through one-sided re-constructions and re- interpretations of the past.37 To its credit, the new Jaina historiography has unearthed numerous important historical documents. Its authors also reflect on the method of writing history itself, but often only to discredit the work of opponents as “unreliable”. As Jñānsundar (1936: 7) rightly observed, the interest of the Sthānakavāsīs in Loïkā seems to be greatest during periods of ex- pansion, crisis and change. Whenever “Sthānakavāsīs” feel the need to assert their common doctrinal heritage and the need for institutional integration, both Loïkā and the common opposition against image-worship are brought into play. And whenever the “Mūrtipūjaka” tradition as a whole comes under attack, it usually retaliates in kind. In this way the antagonism generates a sense of self-identity in both traditions and contributes to their social integration. Underlying the antagonism between the previously socially insignificant denominational super-categories such as “Mūrtipūja- ka” and “Sthānakavāsi”, incorporating several “sub-”sects, is the struggle over the definition of the “essence” of “true Jainism” (understood in the manner of the new book oriented Religions- wissenschaft) under the banner of “Jain” unity. At stake was the ideological self-definition and thus political positioning of the entire “Jain community” at a time of the emergence of Jain religious nationalism.38

37 Lokāśāh ke yug se lekar āj tak kisī bhī vidvān sthānakavāsī muni ne athvā gçhastha ne viśuddha itihās ke dçùtikoõ se kuch likhā ho, vah mere dekhne meü nahīü āyā. ... praśasti tathā guõānuvād hī adhik hai – itihās us meü nahīü hai (Mālvaõiyā 1964: 365). The same is true for histories of Loïkā by followers of other sectarian traditions. 38 Flügel 2005; forthcoming (b). The Unknown Loïkā 193

ESSENCE OF RIGHT BELIEF The Loïkāgaccha tradition still exists today in small pockets in Gujarāt.39 Yet, the contemporary followers of the Loïkāgaccha remember nothing of Loïkā or his teachings anymore, and have only the vaguest idea of the recent history of their tradition. Not even Loïkā’s name is mentioned in their few idiosyncratic rituals. With two negligible exceptions,40 most of the modern texts on Loïkā have been produced by Sthānakavāsī, Terāpanthī and Mūrtipūjaka mendicants and lay intellectuals. It appears that the first Sthānaka- vāsī text which explicitly sought support in Loïkā’s teachings was Muni Jeñhmal’s celebrated anti-Mūrtipūjaka polemic Samakita- sāra, essence of right belief. The original Gujarātī text was prepared by several unnamed Sthānakavāsī lay followers, sometime after the religious debate (śāstrārtha) in which Jeñhmal reportedly used the published arguments,41 and printed in 1882 in Rājkoñ by Śeñh Nemicand Hīrācand Koñhārī from Goõóal in Saurāùñra.42 Two further Gujarātī editions were published in the following decades, and one revised Hindī edition of two parts in 193043 (with the translation of the original text forming part one).44 The way in which this work was created offers insights into the strategies through

39 Flügel, forthcoming (c). The term gaccha can mean school, monastic order or sect. 40 I have found only two histories of Loïkā in the Loïkāgaccha upāśrayas, Bagasarāvāëā 1894, and P. T. Śāh 2001. Both texts are derivative and do not add anything new on Loïkā. The second text relies largely on Vārīā 1976. 41 Usī carcā kā sārāüś, anekoü jijñāsu sadgçhastha ke āgraha se, pustakākār ke rūp meü óhāl diyā gayā (Pratham Bhāg kī Bhūmikā, in Jeñhmal 1930: 4). 42 Ātmārām 1903: 289; Vallabhvijay 1909: 14; Bhūmikā in Jeñhmal 1930: 10. 43 Without access to the first three editions it is impossible to clearly identify different layers of commentary which may have been added to the original text in the published version of 1930. 44 V. M. Śāh (1909: 79) mentions a documentation of the counter-arguments of the Mūrtipūjakas, ôhuõóhakmat Khaõóan Rās by Muni Uttamvijay which was unavailable to me. Johannes Klatt’s Jaina Onomastikon, III, p. 1281, mentions another polemical text of this author: Dhundhiā no rāsado (Ahmadābād: Nāran Kçùõarām, 1869). 194 PETER FLÜGEL which the effective history of a tradition is created and re-created, and suggests that an investigation of parallels in the history of the transmission of knowledge in the Jaina tradition may yield materials for an understanding of processes of identity-formation through the work of canonisation outside the canon, which have not yet been investigated.45 First of all, Jeñhmal was not the author of the published work. At the time, it was generally not considered ap- propriate for Sthānakavāsī munis to publish books under their own name, because of the violence of the printing press and because of the implicit promotion of egotism. Instead, lay-followers published lecture notes of the pravacanas of their gurus. In its prefaces and introductions, the text is described as a synopsis of the arguments used by Jeñhmal in a public debate with the Tapāgaccha saüvegī munis Vīrvijay and Yaśovijay on doctrinal differences which divided their religious traditions.46 The debate took place in Ahmedabad, either in 1808/9 (Saüvat 1865)47 or 1821/2 (Saüvat 1878).48 It was triggered by a communal dispute. According to Śāh (1909: 78f.), Sthānakavāsī mendicants were proselytising at the time in the town. In response, the locally dominant Mūrtipūjaka laity threatened to excommunicate all Sthā- nakavāsīs from their castes (jñātī). In order to help his beleaguered co-religionists in this situation, Ācārya Prāg from the Sthānakavāsī Dariyāpūrī Sampradāya travelled from his abode in the village of Visalapura outside Ahmedabad to the Tabīā Poë in the Sāraïgapura district of the city centre. He stayed in Gulābcand Hīracand’s house

45 On strategies of canonisation in the Jaina context see Bruhn 1987: 107, etc. To my knowledge, the term “secondary canonisation” was first used by Glasenapp (1925). The term “work of canonisation” was introduced by Assmann (1987: 19). For further studies on processes of canonisation in South Asia see Dalmia, Malinar & Christof 2003. 46 Jñānsundar 1936: 15 suggests that Jeñhmal developed his arguments on the basis of a text called Vivāha Cūliyā Sūtra, which was unavailable to me. 47 Jñānsundar (1936: 15, 293) argued that the debate itself took place in Saüvat 1865, because Jeñhmal was already dead in Saüvat 1878 (he does not give any information as to which Jeñhmal he identified). 48 V. M. Śāh 1909: 78f. The Unknown Loïkā 195 and also imparted religious instruction to the families of Gīrdhar Śaïkar, Pānācand Jhavercand, Rāycand Jhavercand, Khīmcand Jhavercand, and others, who, in turn, helped him to spread his word. In order to end the ensuing quarrels between Sthānakavāsīs and Mūrtipūjakas, both parties went to court. To educate themselves about the Jaina religion, the judges invited munis from both sides as expert witnesses. For Prāg’s side the learned Muni Jeñh- mal, apparently a suśiùya of Muni Rūpcand of the Bhūdhar Dharma- dāsa Sampradāya in Rājasthān,49 was present, together with twenty- seven other munis;50 and for the Mandirmārgīs Muni Vīrvijay together with Yaśovijay and several monks and scholars (śāstrī) came to the court. According to “someone’s” notes (yādī) of the court- proceedings, the judgement of 1878 pauù śukla 13 (6.1. 1822)51 apparently favoured the arguments of Jeñhmal’s side – described as cetanapūjakas, worshippers of living consciousness, in contrast to the mūrtipūjakas, worshippers of images – although in their respective literatures both sides claimed victory.52 Although there is no conclusive evidence, the timing of the belated publication was almost certainly related to the publication of what is probably the first polemic against the Sthānakavāsīs in

49 Preface, in Jeñhmal 1930: 4. Señh (1970: 1112, n. 1) writes that Jeñhmal temporarily belonged to the orders of Ācārya Jaymal and of the Terāpanth ācārya Bhikùu respectively. Other sources say that he worked under the directive of Ācārya Amarasiïha (Flügel 2003a: 237). 50 Reportedly, twenty-five monks from Rājasthān were present, plus two monks from Prāg’s group, and apparently Muni Mul (Mūë?) from the Sāyalā Sampradāya in Gujarāt who is said to have supported Muni Jeñhmal from the Palanpur Sampradāya (Maõilāl 1934: 227f.). This points to a concerted effort on the side of the Sthānakavāsīs, which may have required them to take recourse to Loïkā to find a common platform. 51 Some sources say: 1878 phālgun śukla 1 (22.2.1822). The case is mentioned in V. M. Śāh 1909: 78f.; Maõilāl 1934: 192f., 198f., 228; Jñānsundar 1936: 7, 15, 293; Candanākumārī 1964: 150, 192; Hastīmal 1971: 138f. See Flügel 2000: 68, n. 54 and 79, n. 77; 2003a: 237. 52 Only the mūrtipūjak ono parājay thayo – cetanapūjak ono jay thayo; and jeñho rīkh āvyore, kāgaë vāücī rarī; pustak bahu lāvyore, gāóuü ek bharī (in V. M. Śāh 1909: 79). Jñānsundar 1936: 15 simply states Jeñhmal’s defeat (hār). 196 PETER FLÜGEL print53 in Ātmārām’s (1881/1954, II: 539f.) work Jainatattvādarśa which appeared in Bhāvnagar in Saüvat 1937. After his separation from and excommunication by the Sthānakavāsī Ācārya Amara- siïha (1805-1881) of the Pañjāb Lavjīçùi Sampradāya and his re- initiation into the Tapāgaccha in Saüvat 1932 (1875/6) in Ahmeda- bad, the ex-Sthānakavāsī muni Ātmārām (Vijayānanda Sūri) contributed much to the Mūrtipūjaka revival in Gujarāt and in the Pañjāb. To revive the “Sanātan Jaina Dharma”54 by attracting more followers, Ātmārām started a vigorous pro-image-worship cam- paign, which he had already instigated in his later years as a Sthā- nakavāsī monk, during which he criticised many of the contemporary practices of the Sthānakavāsīs. One of the points of contention before he left was that Ācārya Amarasiïha did not answer twenty-one “legitimate” questions which were put to him in Saü- vat 1925 (1868) by certain Sthānakavāsī śrāvakas from Dillī.55 Amarasiïha and his successor Ācārya Sohanlāl (1846-1936) of the Lavjīçùi tradition were the dominant Sthānakavāsī monks in his native Pañjāb at the time, and the main targets of his critique. After Ātmārām’s excommunication and the publication of his Jaina- tattvādarśa, Sohanlāl sent – on request of Amarasiïha56 – a praśnottara of one hundred questions57 to Ātmārām in Saüvat 1938 caitra śukla 5 (4.4.1881), to which Ātmārām instantly replied in Saüvat 1938 caitra śukla 7 (6.4.1881), without receiving a response.58 Shortly thereafter, it seems, in Saüvat 1938 (1882)59

53 yah lok to sarva jainmat se viparīt calanevāle hai (Ātmārām 1954, II: 540). 54 Ātmārām 1900a: 72. 55 Vallabhvijay 1891: 131f. The first question asked for the paññāvalī of all ācāryas beginning with Mahāvīra, which apparently did not exist in this Sthāna- kavāsī tradition at the time: 1. śrī mahāvīr svāmī se lekar āj tak pāñānupāñ kaun se ācārya hue unoü ke nām likhne (p. 131). 56 In Vallabhvijay 1891: 72-82. 57 On the śataka format see Balbir 2003a; 2003b. 58 Published by Vallabhvijay 1891: 83-125. 59 Generally, the South Indian calendar applies in Gujarāt, therefore Saüvat 1938 must be 1882, not 1881. The Unknown Loïkā 197 the polemical Samakitsār appeared in print with its sustained attack on mūrtipūjā and a long list of questions to the Mandirmārgīs. Immediately after receiving a copy of this book from a Sthānaka- vāsī layman in Delhi, Ātmārām (1884/1903) composed an equally polemical point-for-point reply under the title Samyaktva Śalyod- dhāra, removal of the thorns from right belief,60 and the work Ajñāna Timira Bhāskara (1888/1906), radiant darkness of igno- rance, in which both the Ārya Samāj and the ôhūõóhiyās are systematically criticised.61 This triggered a long series of tit-for-tat exchanges between leading mendicants (and laity) of the two (three) traditions, which subsided somewhat only after Indian Inde- pendence in 1949, though the conflict is still smouldering and can re-erupt at any time. Of particular interest for us is the role of “Loïkā” in this debate. Ātmārām’s sharp criticism of the “heresy” (nihnava) of the “ôhūõóhiyās” was provoked by Jeñhmal’s (1930: 1-9) construction of a contrast between “the path of compassion” (dayā mārga) and non-violence of the tradition of Loïkā (in its Sthānakavāsī mani- festation),62 and “the path of violence” (hiüsā mārga) of the Mūrti- pūjaka saüvegī mendicants, which were addressed as “yellow-clad pseudo-ascetics” (pītāmbar bheùadhārī). As a synonym of dayā mārga, Jeñhmal used the term mokùa mārga, and compared the path of salvation of the Sthānakavāsīs, which he derived directly from

60 ôhūüóhīye hī hiüsādharmī haiü aur dayā kā yathārtha svarūp nahīü samajhte haiü (Ātmārām 1903: 289). There are many texts in the Jaina bhaõóā- ras with titles such as Samakit Sār Praśnottar Pacchīsī Sajjhāy (L.D. Institute Ms. No. 4734 etc.) which may contain information on earlier exchanges between exponents of the two traditions. 61 The title alluded to Dayānand’s book Timir Bhāskar Jvālāprasād (cf. P. L. Jain 1913/1923: 41). The work addressed the view of the two main rivals of Ātmārām in the Pañjāb. It was composed in two parts between 1882-85 in Ambālā, and first published in Bhāvnagar in 1888. Ātmārām’s deliberation on the beliefs of the Christians, Īsāī Mat Samīkùā, was published posthumously in the year 1900. See Kiraõyaśāstrī 1999, Pariśiùñ I. 62 Jeñhmal 1930: 9f. does not use the word “Sthānakavāsī”, but refers directly to Loïkā and his “true mendicant path”: lokā gaccha-sādhu mārga hī saccā hai (p. 3) 198 PETER FLÜGEL

Loïkā, with the dual concern of the Mūrtipūjakas (and Digamba- ras) with salvation and with material well-being (kuśaliyā darśa- na).63 The Mūrtipūjakas are spreading lies, he argued, because they convey to their followers the illusion that salvation can be reached through pūjā, while preventing them from reading the truth in the scriptures.64 In his long list of rejoinders, of which only the Samyaktva Śalyoddhāra and the Ajñāna Timira Bhāskara seem to have been published during his lifetime, Ātmārām (1903; 1908)65 highlighted Jeñhmal’s “misspellings” and “misunderstandings” of the scriptures, and furnished descriptions of the lax conduct of contemporary ôhūõóhaka mendicants. In his view, the Sthānakavāsīs generally did not observe the canonical prescriptions, and thus truly formed a religion of violence: óhūõóhiye hiüsā dharmī haim.66 In his critique of Jeñhmal’s account, Ātmārām (1903: 7f.) categorical- ly stated that everything that “Jūñhmal” wrote about Loïkā’s beliefs as the source of the Sthānakavāsī doctrines was a “self- imagined fabricated lie”. In accordance with the conventions of the praśnottara genre,67 he backed his claim with selected citations

63 Two realms of value in the Mūrtipūjaka tradition are also identified by Cort 2001. 64 In contrast to other Mūrtipūjaka ācāryas, Ātmārām opposed the publication of the scriptures. He permitted both sādhus and laity to read the sūtras only in the presence of a guru who could explain the meaning of the text, and prevented access to certain texts to women. See for instance Malukcand 1908: 182f. 65 See also his answers to Sohanlāl in Vallabhvijay 1891: 83-125. 66 Ātmārām 1903: 289. It is not entirely clear whether Ātmārām attacks both observed behaviour and customary law in this section. Since he does not address any particular order, though he may have had the Lavjīçùi Amarasiïha Sampra- dāya in mind, his criticism is too vague to be considered in detail. 67 In her discussion of the Kharataragaccha monk Samayasundara’s (1553- 1645) Sāmācārī Śataka of 1616, whose second section (and probably other points as well) is devoted entirely to the critique of “the Sthānakavāsīs” (probably the Loïkāgaccha traditions, but since the canon of “thirty-two” is criticised in points 38 and 47 the Sthānakavāsī Jīvarāja may have been addressed), Balbir (2003a: 255, 257; 2003b: 56f.) argues that it was the conflict between Loïkā and the Mūrtipūjakas which lead to the development of the praśnottara genre which reflects the formal features of oral debates. In her view it is the “tendency to The Unknown Loïkā 199 from the canon and from the writings of the Sthānakavāsī tradition itself.68 Information on the true historical origin (kharī utpattī) of the “ôhūõóhak Panth”,69 he argued, can be found in two other Sthānakavāsī texts which he summarised in a few pages: Hīrakalaś- muni’s Kumati Vidhvaüsana Caupāī, quatrain on the destruction of stupidity, and the ôhuõóhak Paññāvalī of Amolakcand of the Pañjāb Amarasiïha Sampradāya. Although the furnished information on the lines of succession is rudimentary,70 Ātmārām’s version of the “actual history” contrasts favourably with the account offered by Jeñhmal71 in the style of “localised” versions of Jaina “universal history”, i.e. the history of great beings or mahāpuruùas, and doctrinal “cosmological history”.72 In his first verse, Jeñhmal (1930: 1) wrote, śrī dayā dharma phailā aur bhasma graha utarā jiskā vistār, effectively arguing – stress divergencies” and the lack of “any global organising principle” which distinguishes the genre from the merely “literary” question-answer formats used in the canon, though the method of citing “authentic” written texts in the debates between the late medieval sectarian traditions (see Granoff 1993) seems to be the principal difference: “such works are meant to discuss specific points that gave birth to different opinions within different Jain circles by referring to scriptures, with the idea to settle them according to the view in force within the order to which the author belongs” (Balbir 2003a: 256). 68 Jeñhmal meü jo luüpakmat kī utpatti likhī hai bilkul jhūñhī aur svakapol kalpit hai (Ātmārām 1903: 11). 69 Ātmārām 1954, II: 537 derives the term ôhūõóhiya or ôhūõóhaka, polem- ically from ôhūõóha, or ruin. The Sthānakavāsī themselves derive ôhūõóhiya from ôhūõçhiya or ôhūõçhaka, or seeker. See for instance Hastīmal 1995: 769. 70 Cf. Flügel 2000; 2003a; Jain & Kumār 2003. 71 Jñānsundar 1936: 29 used the same method of critique backed with more evidence of this kind in his rejoinder to the later Sthānakavāsī itihāsa literature. 72 Bruhn 1983: 37 defines Jaina universal history in terms of “a definite mythological subject, the history of the sixty-three great men”. Cort 1995: 473 coined the loosely defined term “localised history” to describe similar narrative structures, focusing on great personalities, etc., within particular sectarian traditions. For the present purpose – the analysis of “historical narratives of great beings” – both definitions are too specific, and do not account for the cosmological themes in Jaina historical narratives. I would suggest to see “universal history”, as defined by Bruhn, as a term which mediates between “chronological” and “cosmological history”. 200 PETER FLÜGEL as Devçùi’s commentary explains – that Loïkā’s revival of “true Jainism” in the year Saüvat 1531, exactly two thousand years after Mahāvīra’s death, was predicted already by the canonical Jina- cariya 129-131, which says that after a two thousand year period during which

there will not be paid much respect and honour to the śramaõas, the Nir- grantha monks and nuns (...) when the great [Bhasma] Graha, &c., leaves that natal asterism [of Mahāvīra], there will be paid much respect and honour to the śramaõas, the Nirgrantha monks and nuns for an era of two-thousand years (KS 130f.).

This somewhat optimistic version of Jaina cosmological history, which allows for progressive intervals within the generally predicted decline, contrasts however with other passages in the scriptures. In his rejoinder, Ātmārām (1903: 4) cited the famous section Viy 20.8.4 in which Mahāvīra predicted that his teaching will survive for at least 21,000 years after his death. The same argument had previously been used by the 16th-century founders of two Sthānakavāsī orders, Lava and Dharmadāsa, against the followers of the Loïkāgaccha and the Ekal Pātriyāpanth, who indeed seem to have favoured the Jinacaritra passage, to which Jeñhmal had re- verted without fear of sanction, because the Loïkāgaccha was already in terminal decline, and no competition for the Sthānaka- vāsīs anymore.73 Since there is no independent criterion for judging which of the two versions is more authentic (even historical precedence would not solve the issue) any choice between them is a matter of personal preference and of sectarian interests. How- ever, due to his correspondence with European scholars such as Hoernle74 and the presence of his representative V. R. Gāndhī at the first Parliament of World Religions in Chicago in 1893, Ātmārām’s writings were widely read outside India, and significantly influenced the image of the Jaina community projected by the first

73 Flügel 2000: 72f. 74 Ātmārām 1916. The Unknown Loïkā 201 generations of modern Indologists. Jeñhmal’s text, by contrast, circulated only within the literary elite of the Sthānakavāsīs and Mūrtipūjakas. Thus, only the Mūrtipūjaka depiction entered Euro- pean textbooks on Jainism. The second round of the dispute was fought on behalf of Sohan- lāl and Ātmārām between the Sthānakavāsī mahāsatī “Jainācārya”75 Pārvatī Devī (1854-1939) from the Amarasiïha Sampradāya and Ātmārām’s disciple and future ācārya Muni Vallabhvijay (1870- 76 1954). Pārvatī Devī was a remarkable Jaina nun who on the 28.12. 1872 (1929 mārgaśīrùa kçùõa 13) in Delhi changed from the Mano- haradāsa Sampradāya of Ācārya Ratnacandra (died 1864)77 to the Pañjāb Lavjīçùi tradition of Ācārya Amarsiïha (1805-1881).78 Ac- cording to Sarlā (1991: 299), she chose a less restrictive group in order to be able to preach in public, to publish books, and to wander alone.79 Her official biography by P. L. Jain (1913/1923: 30), however, informs us that she joined the Amarsiüha Sampradāya because its mendicants followed the scriptures more closely. Pārva- tī Devī’s pamphlet Jñāna Dīpikā (Lāhaur 1889), a critique of the Jainatattvādarśa,80 and Muni Vallabhvijay’s (1891: 9-71) reply,

75 Book cover Pārvatī 1905b. “Ācārya” is here used as a honorific title. 76 According to Vallabhvijay’s often polemical remarks on her biography (1891: 6-11), she was born in an Agravāl baniyā family of the village Luhāra near Āgrā, took dīkùā from her teachers Muni Kuüvarsena and Sādhvī Hīrāü of Ratnacandra’s Sthānakavāsī Manoharadāsa Sampradāya on the 6.4.1867 (1924 caitra śukla 2). Kuüvarsena did not follow Ratnacandra’s command (ājñā) and separated himself later together with his disciples. Pārvatī’s official biographer P. L. Jain (1913/1923) confirms her basic biodata. He relates the interesting detail that her father’s brother followed the Digambara tradition, and her father the Sthānakavāsī tradition of Ratnacand’s disciple Kuüvarsena (p. 5). 77 Vallabhvijay 1902: 46. 78 Vallabhvijay 1891: 8 notes that the disputes between Pārvatī and Ātmārām, who left the Sthānakavāsīs in 1874, caused great discordance between the Jaina traditions in the Pañjāb: pañjāb meü ākar bahut Jaina dharma kī nindā karāvegā. 79 Her texts are published in the praśnottara format, and are probably based on protocols of oral conversations with her lay followers. 80 The contents can be inferred from Vallabhvijay’s response (1891: 9-71). I have not been able to locate a copy of this or any other text mentioned in the 202 PETER FLÜGEL

Gappa Dīpikā,81 re-ignited the debate in the Pañjāb which was again conducted in the form of praśnottaras, in which for instance the difference between the thirty-one Āgamas which were allegedly accepted by Loïkā and the thirty-two Āgamas of the Sthānakavāsīs was questioned by Vallabhvijay (1891: 130f.), who dismissed Pārvatī’s book as a “work of sin” which calls for an atonement (prāyaścitta) since, in accordance with the rules of the scriptures, no sādhvī before her had ever written a book nor spoken in the assembly of men.82 Vallabhvijay was, in turn, repudiated by an anonymous [?] pamphlet called Gappa Dīpikā Samīr kā Gappa and Paõóit Jiyālāl Jain’s (1893) Carcā Candroday Bhāg Tisrā. Accor- ding to Vallabhvijay’s (1909: 14-18) chronology of the exchanges between 1881-1909,83 in response to Vallabhvijay, Ācārya Sohanlāl wrote Draupadīpūjā Khaõóan (Amçtsar),84 Muni èùirāj Satyārtha Sāgara (Pune), and an unnamed author Saüvegīmat Sāguphā following which is not listed in the bibliography. Further books of Pārvatī, which were inaccessible to me, are Jaina Dharma ke Dās Niyam (1889), Go Rakùā kā Upadeś (1900), Kuvyasan Niùedh (1915), Mukti Nirõay Prakāś (1916), Śrīmad Bhagavān Nemināth Rājīmatījī kā Jīvan Caritra (1918), Brahmacarya Vidhi (1919), and Vairāgya Prakāś (1930). Further criticisms of Ātmārām, whom she met personally for the first time in 1863 in Āgrā, are summarised in P. L. Jain 1913/1923: 32-37, 249f., 278-283, II: 47-50, 71f. They concern issues such as the initiation of five year old children, or the habit of Ātmārām’s mendicants of taking baths, which are defended in the Jainatattvādarśa, and in particular the “misrepresentation” of the Sthānakavāsī tradition in the last section of this book. 81 The title of Vallabhvijay’s ôhuõóhak-hita-śikùā Apanām Gappa-dīpikā- samīr (1891) alludes also to V. M. Śāh’s Hita-śikùā. Vallabhvijay quotes exten- sively from Ātmārām. His authorship of the work, as well as the attribution of the authorship of “Vijayrājendra Sūri’s” Caturtha Stuti Kuyukti Nirõay Chedan Kuñhār to Vallabhvijay’s disciple Dhanvijay, has been disputed by J. Jain (1893: 6f.), in response to the polemical attribution of Pārvatī’s book to an anonymous Brāhmaõ. 82 Vallabhvijay 1909: 1f. 83 With details supplemented from other sources. 84 The critique of image worship in the manner of Draupadī, who apparently only at her wedding under special circumstances venerated images, is a topos of the aniconic Jaina literature. See for instance L 7; Jeñhmal 1930: 84-112. Com- pare: “The Story of Draupadi” in: Nagendra K. Singh (ed.), Encyclopaedia of Jainism, Vol. 22, pp. 5931-5945. New Delhi: Anmol Publications, 2001. The Unknown Loïkā 203

(Ambālā); which was countered by an unnamed author’s text Jahā- lat ôhuõóhiyā (Ambālā). Three further Sthānakavāsī pamphlets, Kāgahans Nirõay (Ambālā), Manta kī Bahsa Pūjerāü of Kanīyālāl (Pañayālā), and Samyaktva athavā Dharma no Darvājo by V. M. Śāh (Ahmedabad), were countered by Muni Amarvijay’s Dharma nā Darvājā Jovā nī Diśā, which in turn was criticised by a text published in Ahmadabad, Kamalprabhā. The response to Mahāsatī Pārvatī’s Satyārtha-Candrodaya-Jain (Lāhaur: Lālā Meharcand, 1904) on the “stupid” worship of “lifeless objects” (jaç pūjā)85 and on the nikùepas86 was Muni Amarvijay’s (1908) ôhūõóhak-Hçday- Netrāñjanaü athavā Satyārtha-Candrodayāùñakaü; and in response to the Sthānakavāsī pamphlet Iśatahār-Amarāvatī, an unnamed Mūrtipūjaka author wrote ôhuõóhakpol Amarāvatī, which was countered by the texts Khulāsāpol Saüvegīyāü (Amçtsar), Muni Ratnacand’s Saüvegīmat Mardan (Amçtsar), and Śāstrārtha Nābhā (Ambālā). The last Mūrtipūjaka text on Vallabhvijay’s list is ôhuõóhakmat Parājay (Ātmānand Jain Sabhā Pañjāb 1909) which gives information on the judgement of Mahārāja Hīrāsiüha Bahādur of Pañayālā in favour of Vallabhvijay in a debate with Sohanlāl on the scriptural foundations of their respective views in

85 Like most topics of the sectarian debate, the issue was already addressed by Loïkā, and discussed for instance in Samayasundara’s Sāmācārī Śataka 40 (Balbir 2003a: 260). However, like Ātmārām (Vijayānandsūri), Pārvatī (1905b) was also engaged in an ideological battle against the “Āryyās”, i.e. the Ārya Samāj. 86 See Jeñhmal’s (1930) critique of the interpretation of the nikùepa doctrine by the hiüsādharmī, i.e. the image-worshippers. The Mūrtipūjaka tradition treats the four principal analytical standpoints, or nikùepa (nāma, dravya, sthāpana, bhāva), as equivalent, whereas the Sthānakavāsī or dayādharmī tradition gives priority to the bhāva nikùepa: anuyogadvāra sūtra meü 4 nikùepa kahe haiü yah to satya hai par cāroü hī nikùepa vandanīk nahīü kahe. ek bhāv nikùepa vandanīk kahā hai (Jeñhmal 1930: 54). The principal reply was formulated by Muni Ātmārām (1884/1908), who in turn was criticised by Mahāsatī Pārvatī (1905a) in her work Satyārtha Candrodaya Jaina, which was rejected in Muni Amarvijay’s ôhūõóhak Hçday Netrāñjanaü athavā Satyārtha Candrodayāùña- kaü (1908). An early Digambara critique of this view can be found in the Sūrya- prakāśa of the year 1825. See Dundas 2001: 67, n. 44. For short summaries of Pārvatī’s debates with Digambara laity see P. L. Jain 1913/1923. 204 PETER FLÜGEL

5.2.1904.87 It was followed by seven Sthānakavāsī responses, some of which are reprinted and criticised in the collection edited by Muni Amarvijay (1908): Pītāmbarī Parājay (Amçtsar), Muni Rām- candra’s Amçtsar Saügraha (Mumbaī), the stavan of Muni Mādhav Taraïgiõī Dvitīya Taraïg (Āgrā 1908), Muni Saubhāg- mal’s Vividh Ratna Prakāś (Pune), Muni Kundanmal’s Pragañ Jaina Pītāmbarī Mūrtipūjakoü kā Mithyātva (1908),88 and his Ātmārām Saüvegī kī Karttūt, Ātmārām kī Ādat kā Namūnā (n.d.), and finally V. M. Śāh’s (1909) Sādhumārgī Jaina Dharmānuyāyīoe Jāõvā Jog Keñalīk Aitihāsik Noüdh, a key text for the modern Sthānakavāsī unification movement, which attracted much critical response from the Mūrtipūjakas, not least from Vallabhvijay (1909),89 Ujamcand (1909), and Jñānsundar (1936: 247ff.), because it again referred to Loïkā as the common forefather of all Sthāna- kavāsīs and thereby started a new round of debates.90

HISTORICAL NOTES V. M. Śāh (1878-1931) was the first layperson to make an important intellectual contribution to the study of Loïkā’s legacy for the Sthānakavāsīs,91 and the first Sthānakavāsī to collect some of the available though “untrustworthy” paññāvalīs in order to tenta- tively reconstruct, in the manner of Ātmārām, an accurate history of the entire Sthānakavāsī tradition.92 He was also a prime mover

87 Note that many pamphlets of the Mūrtipūjaka monks have been published under Ātmārām’s name even after his death. See footnote 81. 88 Kundanmal belonged to the Raghunātha Sampradāya. 89 He described it as a “work of deceit”. See V. M. Śāh’s reply (1925: 3f.). 90 Muni [Ācārya] Amolakçùi’s Śāstroddhār Mīmāüsā (1920), an addendum to his Āgama edition is also a key text for the Sthānakavāsī revival. It contains a few pages on Loïkā (pp. 57-60) and sustained a criticism of the Mūrtipūjakas and Digambaras. I only recently gained access to this book. 91 The Mūrtipūjaka layman Lālā Jayadayāl’s ôhūõóhak Mat Samīkùā (n.d.) must have been published in the Pañjāb sometime before 1908. 92 Śāh 1909: 5 singles out the paññāvalīs of the Darīyāpurī Sampradāya, the Pañjāb (Lavjīçùi) Sampradāya and of the Mūrtipūjaka “Vijaya” and “Sāgara” The Unknown Loïkā 205 behind the creation of the All India Sthānakavāsī Jaina Conference (AISJC) of the Sthānakavāsī laity in February 1906 in Morvī,93 and publicised in his 1909 book for the first time the idea of creating a unified order of all Sthānakavāsī mendicants. Although Loïkā was a layman, it was he alone who could serve as a common ancestor, because the Sthānakavāsī tradition was founded not by one but by several different ex-Loïkāgaccha mendicants, who initially shared little more than the rejection of image-worship and the criticism of “lax conduct” of the Loïkāgaccha yatis. After their creation between c. 1628-1668, the original five Sthānakavāsī mendicant traditions quickly split into numerous sub-groups which developed different customs and began to struggle with one another, until the AISJC finally called for an end of all “internal” antagonism. Con- flicts between mendicant orders were divisive for the Sthānakavāsī laity as well and obstructed aim of the AISJC leadership to assert the political influence of Sthānakavāsī representatives on a national platform. From 1906 onwards, the AISJC, like the competing Con- ferences of the Digambaras and Mūrtipūjakas which were established in 1893 and 1902 respectively, held regular meetings on an all-India basis to prepare the ground for the first mahāsammelan, or great assembly, of representatives of all Sthānakavāsī mendicant traditions, which was finally held in 1933 in Ajmer. Before the assembly congregated, a fourth edition of the Sama- kitsār, which was also the first Hindī edition, was published in 1930 under the auspices of the Akhil Bhāratīya Sthānakavāsī Jaina Conference after years of careful preparation of the translation by Muni Devçùi (1872-1942), who in 1936 succeeded Ācārya Amolakçùi (1877-1936) – one of the most influential Sthānakavāsī monks at the time who was the first to publish a printed edition and

Śākhā (which treated the Sādhumārgī and Loïkagacchī as “sammūrcchima”) for their untrustworthiness, but exempts the Cha Koñī Saïgha (Līmbóī Nānī Pakùa) paññāvalī. 93 On the significance of V. M. Śāh and the text Aitihāsik Noüdh see Flügel 2000; 2003a. 206 PETER FLÜGEL

Hindī translation of the Sthānakavāsī Āgamas – as the leader of the Mālvā èùi Sampradāy. The plan was to make the ideas of Loïkā available to everyone, in the national language of India, and to create a sense of unity amongst the Sthānakavāsī mendicants in opposition to the Mūrtipūjakas in particular. In this context, the author of the Samakit Śalyoddhāra became again a useful target. One of the three anonymous introductions to the Samakitsār94 accused the “stubborn mischief maker” Ātmārām in an ad hominem attack for not understanding the substance of samakita (samyaktva), right belief, nor practising it, as his violent use of language testified. As proof for Ātmārām’s wrongdoing, the following passage of the Dasaveyāliya is cited:

When he notices that [a monk] who has mastered the Āyāra and the [Viyā- ha-]Pannatti [and] who is studying the Diññhivāya, makes a mistake in speaking, he should not mock him. (DVS 8.49).95

In other words, Ātmārām was chided for not seriously criticising the principles of the Sthānakavāsīs, which are beyond reproach, but only the lax conduct of individual ascetics, and in so doing harmed himself due to the aggressive style of his attack. The impressive Loïkāśāh [sic!] Jaina Gurukul, which was built by the AISJC in 1951 in Sāóaçī as a fitting venue for the 1952 mahāsammelan, at which the Śramaõasaïgha was formally founded, still stocks dozens of copies of this edition of the Samakitsār,96 which demon- strates the key role the text played during the constituent phase of the Śramaõasaïgha, both as a symbol of the doctrinal unity of the Sthānakavāsīs and as a common reference source for arguments against the Mūrtipūjakas.

94 Written either by Devçùi or, more likely, by one of the editors of the book in Jeñhmal 1930: 11-19. 95 Schubring’s translation. Original cited in Jeñhmal 1930: 18. 96 The Hindī edition of the Śrīlāljī Mahārāj kā Sacitra Jīvancaritra which was composed by Durlabh T. Jhauharī (1922/23), one of the principal leaders of the Sthānakavāsī laity at the time, is the only other text which is available in huge quantities. The Unknown Loïkā 207

The Ajmer sammelan identified the problem of harmonising the different maryādās of the Sthānakavāsī sampradāyas as one of the prime obstacles for the planned formation of a unified Śramaõa- saïgha. Another obstacle was the lack of a common origin and lineage. One year after this momentous meeting, the first important study of the history of the Sthānakavāsī tradition as a whole appeared in print: the Śrī Jaina Dharm ano Prācīn Saïkùipt Itihās ane Prabhu Vīr Paññāvalī by Muni Maõilāl (1934) of the Līmbóī Nānī Pakùa.97 The text contains a long chapter on the “great reformer” Loïkā Śāh,98 in which Maõilāl – with debatable success – attempted for the first time to resolve the contradictions between the transmitted biographies of Loïkā in order to clearly establish the historical links between Loïkā and the various Sthānakavāsī lineages, which are subsequently described in the book. Maõilāl unearthed much new material,99 particularly on the Gujarātī traditions, and produced the first comprehensive work on the aniconic traditions, as far as his (not clearly referenced) sources permitted.100 His work was nevertheless criticised by the General Annual Meeting of the AISJC on the 10.5.1936 for its “incomplete” nature because it does not give a sufficient account of the Ajmer sammelan, and probably also because it does not provide much evidence on the Sthānaka-

97 Reprinted photos of Maõilāl and Pārvatī Devī are mocked as “suitable evidence” for the “aniconic” credentials of the Sthānakavāsīs in Amarvijay 1908: 77f. 98 Maõilāl 1934: 157-178. See also the chapter on the Loïkāgaccha, pp. 179- 186. There is no evidence in the oldest sources that Loïkā’s family name was Śāh, though this is commonly assumed in modern literature. 99 For instance, the Tapāgaccha muni Kāntivijay’s Ath Loïkāśāh nuü Jīvan, which he published in its entirety at the beginning of the chapter on Loïkā (Maõilāl 1934: 161f.). For a critique of this text and its influence on Maõilāl see Jñānsundar 1936: 9ff. 100 Deśāī 1926-44, III: 2204 mentions that Maõilāl edited the paññāvalīs on which the published work is based in Saüvat 1941. Śeñh 1962: 342 quotes an additional book of Maõilāl, Prabhuvīr Paññāvalī māü Loïkāśāh nuü Jīvan- caritra. I was unable to trace these works; nor Jīvaõlāl Kālīdās Vorā’s (ed.) Jaindharma Darpaõ of Saüvat 1942 which, according to Deśāī, also contains paññāvalīs of the aniconic traditions. 208 PETER FLÜGEL vāsī traditions in North India.101 Jñānsundar (1936: 16), whose own publication Śrīmad Lauïkāśāh responded critically to the renewed Sthānakavāsī interest in Loïkā, did not fail to mention this. After the Ajmer sammelan, the role of Loïkā as a “founding father” was made more prominent within the Sthānakavāsī movement, and for the first time entire books were devoted to the depiction of his religious reforms. The most widely read account of Loïkā at the time was the Dharmaprāõ-Loïkāśāh (Krānti no Yuga- sçùñā), by the social reformer Muni Saubhāgyacandra “Santabāëa” (1939) of the Līmbóī Moñī Pakùa. It was apparently written already in the 1920s and first published in the journal Sthānakavāsī Jain, founded in Ahmedabad Pañcabhāī nī Poë in 1932,102 and between 10.11.1935–13.1.1936 re-published in Gujarātī in the form of a series of articles in the journal Jaina Prakāśa, the mouthpiece of the AISJC. The text contains few references, although Deśāī’s work is mentioned. In the same year (1935), the Sthānakavāsīs celebrated “Loïkāśāh’s birthday”103 with a national poetry festival in the Rājasthān town Sojat Road. The festival was organised by “Maru- dhar Keśarī” Mantrī Muni Miśrīmal (1891-1984) of the Raghu- nātha Sampradāya, a fervent advocate of reform (kùetra viśuddhi) and of the unification of all Sthānakavāsī traditions (Editors, in Miśrīmal 1936: 1), whose speech at the regional sammelan of the Sthānakavāsī sādhus [sic!] on the 10.3.1932 in the town of Pālī, on the necessity to strengthen the influence of the Sthānakavāsīs “in the world”, is now celebrated as one of the pivotal moments of the unification movement.104 At the time, no “reliable” biography of Loïkā was available in Hindī, apart from the 1925 translation of V. M. Śāh’s (1909) pioneering work. In 1936, Miśrīmal therefore

101 My earlier statement that Maõilāl’s work was declared as the official history of the AISJC has to be corrected. See Flügel 2000: 41. The Līmbóī Nānī Pakùa, to which Maõilāl belonged, never joined the Śramaõasaïgha. 102 I have not been able to trace early editions of this journal. 103 The historical date is disputed, but the Sthānakavāsīs declared kārtik śukla 15 to be Loïkā’s birthday. 104 Miśrīmal, in Surānā 1976: 217f. The Unknown Loïkā 209 published in Hindī a book entitled Dharmavīr Loïkāśāh. This work relies mostly on V. M. Śāh, Maõilāl, and Saubhāgyacandra, but also uses two newly discovered sources: a “Prācīn Paññāvalī”105 which he found in the Jaitāraõ Bhaõóār, and a “few leafs” from the Loïkāgaccha Upāśray in Kuraóāyā.106 It was followed in 1941 by a versified biography called Krāntikārī Vīr Loïkāśāh in 1941, and in 1946 by a short collection of dohās and óhāls, biographical poems, called Vīr Loïkāśāh. Saubhāgyacandra’s and Miśrīmal’s works spread the new Sthānakavāsī “standard portrait” of Loïkā throughout the north Indian Jaina world. However, both books contain, if at all, only general references and no critical evaluation of the available sources. Their “scientific” value was therefore dismissed not only by Muni Jñānsundar (1936) in his evidence-based critique of the contemporary Sthānakavāsī historiography, but even by the Sthānakavāsī muni Suśīlkumār (1959: g), who further disagreed with Saubhāgyacandra’s “extreme” (ativāda) interest in social reform. A doctrinal response to Mūrtipūjaka criticisms was formulated in the book Loïkāśāh Mat-Samarthan, “Confirmation of Loïkā’s belief”, whose revised version was published in 1939.107 It is one of four works which were published by Ratanlāl ôośī of Sailānā (M.P.) in the 1930s and 1940s to defend key Sthānakavāsī doctrines and practices, such as the rejection of mūrtipūjā and the permanent use of the mukhavastrikā (which Loïkā reportedly never wore). ôośī was a leading lay intellectual of the orthodox Jñāna- gaccha and a personal devotee of its ācārya Samarthamal (1898- 1972), who was opposed to the unification of all Sthānakavāsī traditions. In the work Loïkāśāh Mat-Samarthan he compiled textual evidence from the Śvetāmbara canon in support of the propo-

105 This may be the same text that was published in the collection of Hastīmal 1968. 106 Miśrīmal 1936: 64. 107 The published text has a complex history of translation from Hindī to Gujarātī (first edition) and back again. 210 PETER FLÜGEL sition that image worship is uncanonical, which he associated with the name of Loïkā in a general way. Kesarīcand Bhaõóārī’s (1938: 92) widely circulated Sthānakavāsī Jaina Itihās – one of the first books with the 20th-century self-description “Sthānakavāsī” in the title108 – also refers to “ôośī’s (1939) text for authoritative doctrinal arguments. However, this work does not contain any references to Loïkā’s writings, for which no direct evidence existed at the time. The conventional counter-arguments of the Mūrtipūjakas against the “lying sampradāyavādīs” – the aniconic traditions – who under- mine the “unity” of the Jaina dharma were repeated several decades later in the works of the Mūrtipūjaka layman Nagīndās Gir- dharlāl Śeñh, Mūl Jaina Dharma ane Hāl nā Sampradāyo (1962), Sthānakavāsī Jaino nuü Dharma Kartavya (1963), and Loïkaśāh ane Dharmacarcā (1964). Whereas ôośī worked on the premise that the Sthānakavāsīs continue Loïkā’s doctrinal tradition, Śeñh (1962: 342) reiterated Jñānsundar’s (1936: 171ff.) verdict that the followers of the Loïkāgaccha and the Sthānakavāsīs are historical enemies. To this purpose, he cites the depiction of Loïkā in early Mūrtipūjaka and Loïkāgaccha sources,109 published by Jñānsundar (1936: 234-240) and Deśāī (1926-44, II-III: 1931-1944), which had been entirely ignored by the Sthānakavāsī commentary literature until the 1960s.

SIXTY-NINE STATEMENTS Before the publication of two old manuscripts of the Loïkāgaccha tradition in 1936 by Jñānsundar (1936: 234-240), “Loïkā’s” beliefs

108 In isolated form, the word “sthānakavāsī” occurs reportedly much earlier (Suśīlkumār 1959: 427), but even Upādhyāya Ātmārām (1942: 12, cf. 16), who devoted an entire article on the history of the word sthānakavāsī to prove that the principal Sthānakavāsīs are the mokùa-seeking bhāva sthānakavāsīs not the dravya sthānakavāsīs (sthānake bhāvasaüyamādirūpe samyakcāritre vasati tacchīla iti sthānakavāsī), did not cite earlier examples of its modern use as a self-description. John E. Cort mentioned to me that the word is used in a polemical Mūrtipūjaka text of the late 18th century. 109 Śeñh 1962: 344-383. The Unknown Loïkā 211 were only indirectly known through the early polemics of his Mūrtipūjaka and Digambara opponents. The earliest known sources for the views of Loïkā written by his own followers are the Dayā- dharma Caupāī, composed by the Loïkāgaccha “yati” (monk or lay-ascetic) Bhānucandra in Saüvat 1587 (1521/2),110 and the Loïkāśāha Siloko, written in Saüvat 1600 (1543/4) by the Loïkā- gaccha yati Keśavaçùi.111 However, they were not widely circulated and had no notable impact. The oldest dated texts on the Loïkā- tradition were written by their Mūrtipūjaka opponents. The Asūtra- nirākaraõa Batrīśī of Muni Bīkā was written in Saüvat 1527 (1470/1),112 the Luïkāmata Pratibodha Kulak was written by an anonymous author in Saüvat 1530 (1473/4),113 the Siddhānta Caupāī of Muni Lāvaõyasamay in Saüvat 1543 (1486/7),114 and the short Siddhānta Sāroddhāra [Caupāī] of Upādhyāya Kamal- saüyam of the Kharataragaccha in Saüvat 1544 (1487/8).115 A text that has often been cited by Sthānakavāsīs is the Ath Loïkāśāh nuü Jīvan (ALJ), composed in Pāñaõ in Saüvat 1636 (1579/60) by the Tapāgaccha muni Kāntivijay.116 Apart from a short passage in

110 Published by Jñānsundar (1936: 234-237) who located the Ms. in the Lābhasundarajī Jñāna Bhaõóāra. 111 Published in a Bombay paper on the 18.7.1936, and republished by Jñān- sundar (1936: 238-240). For bibliographic references of early Loïkāgaccha sources see Deśāī 1926-44; Flügel 2003a: 219-222. 112 A manuscript of the Gokulbhāī Nānī Saügraha in Rājkoñ was published by Desāī in Jaina Yuga (Bhādrapad 1985 – Kārtak 1986): 99-100 (reprint in Koñhārī 2001: 501-503) and reprinted by Jñānsundar 1936: 230-233. For further bibliographic information on the following texts see Flügel 2003a: 230-233. 113 Ms. No. 5837, L.D. Institute, Ahmedabad, published with a Hindī translation in Hastīmal 1995: 642-646. 114 A manuscript of the Jñānbhaõóār in Pāñaõ was published by Desāī (reprint in Koñhārī 2001: 486-499) and reprinted by Jñānsundar 1936: 209-227. 115 A manuscript of the Jñānbhaõóār in Pāñaõ was published by Desāī in Jaina Yuga 1.2 (Vaiśākh-Jeñh 1986): 339-349 (reprint in Koñhārī 2001: 499-500) and reprinted by Jñānsundar 1936: 228f. 116 Published in Maõilāl 1934: 161f.; Hastīmal 1995: 752-759, Hindī summary by Jñānsundar 1936: 9f. A copy of one original Ms., which was with Yati Sundar of the Kacch Nānī Pakùa, has been given to Ācārya Hastīmal 1995: 751. 212 PETER FLÜGEL

Ācārya Ratnanandī’s Bhadrabāhu Caritra vv. 155-163 of Saüvat 1625 (1568/9), the only presently known Digambara critiques of Loïkā are the Loïkāmata Nirākaraõa Caupāī of Sumatikīrti-sūri which was written almost a century after Loïkā’s death, in Saüvat 1627 (1570/1),117 and the Sata Prābhçta Mokùa Prābhçta òīkā (pp. 305f.) of Bhaññāraka Śrutasāgara.118 Most of these and similar texts are still difficult to access and have therefore not been properly studied. The only early sources on Loïkā which were widely accessible in the 19th and early 20th centuries were short passages in Dharmasāgara’s Pravacana Parīkùā of 1572 (Saüvat 1629) and his Tapāgaccha Paññāvalī Sūtraü of 1589/1590 (Saüvat 1646).119 The first published text which was directly attributed to Loïkā himself was the Loïkejī kī Huõóī (A), or Ath Huõóī Lūïkārī Likh- yate, which contains sixty-nine doctrinal assertions (bol). The printed text is based on a manuscript that was reportedly found in the Sarūpacanda Rāmacanda Upāśrāya in Jaitāraõ, a town in south- ern Rājasthān which was a centre of the Loïkāgaccha Nānī Pakùa until the beginning of the 20th century. It was first published by K. S. Caudharī (1936?: 338-430) in a book called Jin Jñān Ratnā- kar, together with the original sūtra texts, which are summarised by “Loïkā’s bols”, an interpretation of their meaning (bhāvārtha) in Hindī, and several versified Rājasthānī commentaries in the óhāl, dohā and sorañhā meters which were composed in 1926 in Jaypur by Gulābcand (Luõiyā?), a devotee of the Terāpanth ācārya Kālūgaõi (1877-1936), who may have discovered the original

117 Ms. Bīkāner Bçhata Jñānabhaõóāra, Dānasāgara Saügraha No. 72. Padma- nabh S. Jaini is currently publishing a book on the anonymous Digambara text Cauryāüsī Bol which contains extensive criticism of the “Loïkā” tradition. 118 The text is mentioned in Mahāprajña 2000: 7. The followers of Loïkā are apparently accused by the author to be materialists and atheists, because they rejected the veneration of (protector) gods. It must be identical with the author’s commentary to “Kundakunda’s” Pāhuóas in the úañprābhçtādisaügraha, which according to Schubring 1957: 559, describes the followers of Launka as “Pseudo-Śvetāmbaras” (śvetāmbarābhāsa) and as “sinful wrong believers” (pāpiùñhā mithyādçùñayaþ) because they reject images. 119 Published in Darśanavijaya 1933: 41-119. The Unknown Loïkā 213 manuscript.120 The bols were published in a slightly different form and without any commentary by Āñcaliyā (1937: 120-128). Al- though Kālūgaõi’s oral explanations clearly informed Gulābcand’s work,121 no written commentary on Loïkā’s ideas has ever been created by any Terāpanth ācārya.122 The present Terāpanth ācārya Mahāprajña (2000: 6) always cites the Loïkejī kī Huõóī as an authoritative source on Loïkā’s teachings. Like the famous ñabos (ñabbā) of the Sthānakavāsī ācārya Dharmasiïha (1599-1671) and of other, anonymous, authors – vernacular texts which offer rudimentary word-for-word transla- tions of the Prakrit Jaina Āgamas without regard to their syntax – “Loïkā’s bols” were, it seems, deliberately disseminated by the lay disciples of Ācārya Kālūgaõi and his successor Ācārya Tulsī in order to establish an easy access to the “essential teachings” of the Āgamas in a language which everyone could understand.123 This was important, since, with few exceptions, Sanskrit and Pra- krit scholarship was all but lost in the Jaina mendicant traditions in the early 19th century, and did not exist at all within the aniconic traditions before the Jaina revival in the late 19th century.124 Even

120 No further information is available on the original Ms. 121 huõóī jahe Loïkā taõī, acche purātan teha, tiõmeü āgam sākùi thī, bol unhattar jeha. (1) sakal suguõ śir sehrā, śrī kālū gaõi rāy, tāsu pasāye gulāb kahe, dohā rūp banāya. (3) (Gulābcand, in Caudharī 1936?: 338, cf. 428f.). 122 Information from Muni Navratnamala, 12.8.2004, who also stated that according to Terāpanth sources, Loïkā’s original Huõóī (or rather the Ms.?) was written in Saüvat 1583. 123 See Dundas 1996: 74 on Jayācārya’s Rājasthānī translation of Abhayadeva Sūri’s 11th-century Sanskrit commentary on the Viyāhapannatti, and Budhmal 2001: 419 on the introduction of the study of the Sanskrit commentaries into the monastic curriculum of the Terāpanth by Kālūgaõi. 124 A standard critique of Ācārya Bhikùu, even from the Sthānakavāsīs who were subject to the same criticism, was that he “had no knowledge of Sanskrit and Prakrit” (Muni Rajyash, in Nair 1970: iii). See already the complaints of Jñānsundar 1936: 97, and Mālvaõiyā 1964: 378 cited in Dundas 2002: 247 and 250, on the lack of learning of the followers of the aniconic tradition in general,

214 PETER FLÜGEL in 1936, few Terāpanthī ascetics knew Sanskrit and Prakrit. An- other reason for the publication of the text must have been the desire to legitimate the Terāpanth doctrine, which had been the target of critique from all other Jaina sects, with direct reference to Loïkā, who was accepted as an authoritative reference point within the Sthānakavāsī movement. It remains doubtful whether this text can really be attributed to Loïkā. In contrast to other texts attributed to him (see infra), the cited passages from the primary literature contain not a single quote from the commentary literature, only citations from the Āgamas,125 together with the explanations (bol) of “Loïkā” in a quasi-stenog- raphic Rājasthānī-Hindī mix (which indicates that these are not Loïkā’s own words), and of Gulābcand in both Rājasthānī and Hindī. The citations are so skilfully woven together that the resulting text does not assume the form of a casuistic list of uncon- nected points, but reads like a coherently constructed argument.126 which prevented them from understanding the Ardhamāgadhī canon itself and the Sanskrit commentary; though Mālvaõiyā excluded Loïkā himself from this verdict, in view of his extensive citations from the canon. Jñānsundar (1936: 63- 5, 109) and most Mūrtipūjakas credit Pārśvacandra Sūri of the Pārśvacandra- gaccha for the “translation” of the Aïgas into Gujarātī, whereas the Sthānakavāsī tradition refers to Dharmasiïha as the author of the first ñabos. See Flügel 2000: 62; 2003a: 195. 125 1. Sūy(agaóa) 1.12.16, 2. Uvav(āiya) 2.19, 3. Viy(āhapannatti) 7.2 (294b), 4. DVS (Dasaveyāliya) 4.12, 5. Utt(arajjhāyā) 28.29, 6. DVS 4.10, 7. Viy 8.6, 8. Sūy 1.1.2.4, 9. DVS 7.48, 10. Pannavaõā 22, 11. DVS 5.1.92, 12. Āyāra 1.8.4.13, 13. Sūy 1.1.2.14, 14. Uvav 2.20, 15. Utt 28.31, 16. Utt 36.260, 17. Uvav 2.20, 18. Āyāra 1.2.6.5, 19. Aõuogaddārāīü 7 [?], 20. Sūy 1.6.7, 21. Sūy 1.9.1, 22. Sūy 1.1.4.10, 23. Sūy 1.10.3, 24. Utt 4.8, 25. DVS 1.1, 26. Nis(īha) 11.81, 27. Nis 11.91, 28. Nis 15.74f., 29. Nis 16.13f., 30. Nis 17.223, 31. Nis 11.11, 32. Nis 17.224, 33. Nis 8.12, 34. Nis 8.13, 35. Sūy 1.11.20, 36. Utt 20.44, 37. Pannavaõā 11, 38. Dasāsuyakkhandha 9.9, 39. Sūy 1.10.15, 40. DVS 7.1, 41. Sūy 1.12.5, 42. Āyāra 1.6.4.1, 43. Āyāra 1.2.2, 44. Āyāra 1.5.6.1, 45. Uvav 2.19, 46. Utt 31.3, 47. Sūy 1.3.4.6-7, 48. Nis 12.1-2, 49. Āyāra 1.4.4.1f., 50. Utt 14.12, 51. Uvav 2.21, 52. DVS 6.19 [not: “6.21”], 53. DVS 4.[10], 54. Nis 4.22, 55. Utt 10.15, 56. Utt 21.24, 57. Nis 13.42-45, 58. Nis 12.17, 59. òhāõa 2.3.6, 60. òhāõa 2.1.25, 61. òhāõa 2.1.25, 62. Utt 28.36, 63. Utt 23.63, 64. Āyāra 1.4.2.1, 65. DVS 9.4.4, 66. Āyāra 1.1.7 [not: “1.2.4”], 67. Uvav 2.34, 68. Uvav (samava- saraõa adhikār meü, four types of meditation), 69. DVS 7.47.

The Unknown Loïkā 215

Moreover, the content of the text corresponds entirely with the views of the Terāpanthīs at the time.127 It focuses almost exclusively on the principles of proper monastic conduct,128 as taught by the kevalins,129 the condemnation of non-believers, heresies (niõha- va),130 pseudo-monks,131 on the strict distinction between the stan- dards for the Jaina householder and the mendicant,132 and on the prescribed atonements for transgressions.133 It seems that indirectly the credentials of the Sthānakavāsī dayā-dāna theory are also deliberately undermined through the condemnation of the accumulation of good karma through gift-giving and acts of compassion, etc.134 Instead, the priority of knowledge over compassion is em-

126 In this respect, it contrasts with many maryādā lists. See Mette 1974: 4f.; Flügel 2003a: 17. 127 That is, before the reforms of Ācārya Tulsī (1914-1997) after 1949. 128 Nos. 5-6, 10, 15, 22-25, 55, 62, 64-66, 68. 129 Nos. 1, 11-14, 17-18, 20-21. 130 Nos. 2, 8, 16, 41, 45, 50, 63. 131 Nos. 3, 9-13. 132 Nos. 39, 58-61, 67. 133 Thirteen points are concerned with prāyaścittas as outlined in the Nisīha, whereas not one of the bols of L, LH, and LTC deal with atonements. This, and the absence of any discussion of image-worship, indicates that the sixty-nine bols are probably the creation of a (Terāpanth) monk rather than a layman such as Loïkā. 134 Nos. 6, 7, 36, 46-49, 55. An exception is No. 35: je ya dāõaü pasaüsanti, vaham icchanti pāõiõaü; je ya õaü paóisehanti, vitticcheyaü karanti te – “Those who praise the gift, are accessory to the killing of beings; those who forbid it, deprive (others) of the means of subsistence” (Sūy 1.11.20, Jacobi’s translation). This passage has been associated with the Sthānakavāsī muni Jaymal’s defence against Bhīkhaõ’s famous critique of the value of gift giving for the purpose of accumulating puõya (Señh 1970: 1004). It does not come as a surprise, then, that different interpretations of the Prakrit original are offered: “Loïkā’s bol” explains the verse as follows: sāvadya dāna kī praśansā kare tiõa ne prāõī jīvāü ko badha bañchaõhāro kahyo (in Caudharī 1936?: 376). Gulāb- cand’s dohā says: do sāüsārika dāna rī, kare praśansā koya; badha bañche kāya nūü, sūyagaóāïge joya (128). adhyayana igyārahvāü ne viùai, bīsmī gāthā māühi; niùedhiyāü varttamān meü, vçtti cheda kahāhi (129) (Caudharī 1936?: 376f.). 216 PETER FLÜGEL phasised, and that giving “pure gifts” to a mendicant does not lead to accumulating good karma but to the destruction of karma.135 In contrast to the available indirect evidence on Loïkā’s teachings, there is no discussion of image-worship at all. It therefore remains doubtful whether the text, which has apparently not been comment- ed upon by any author, is the product of Loïkā; despite the fact that it also contains some of the most well known of “Loïkā’s” quotations from the canon.136 Thus, by publishing a hitherto unknown text confirming their own views, together with a Terāpanth commentary, the Terāpanthīs could implicitly claim Loïkā as their own predecessor while challenging the assertion of the Sthānaka- vāsīs to be Loïkā’s only legitimate successors.137

OUR HISTORY The appropriation of Loïkā by the Sthānakavāsīs was explicit and on quite a different scale. It culminated in the period after the creation of the unified Śramaõasaïgha under the rule of only one ācārya, which was accomplished after forty-six years of preparation at the mahāsammelan in 1952 at the Loïkāśāh Jaina Gurukul in Sāóaçī. The Gujarātī Sthānakavāsī sampradāyas refused to join the new organisation, which was dominated by Hindī-speaking

The sorñhā finally objects to “Loïkā’s” insertion of the word sāvadya, blameful, in front of the word dāna, because it is not in the original text: sāvadya śabda nahīü pāñha meü, samuccai dān kaheha re (p. 377). In order to explain the meaning, two types of gifts are distinguished: supātra dāna and kupātra dāna, and Viy 8.6.1 (No. 7. in the list of bols) is invoked which states that a gift of pure food to a worthy recipient (a pure monk) is a pure gift (śuddha dāna) “which brings about the annihilation of karman”, rather than the influx of puõya (which is pāpa from the “absolute” point of view that is favoured by the Terā- panth). 135 Nos. 6-7, 8, 55. 136 Nos. 5, 22-25. See infra. 137 The method of legitimising a particular sectarian interpretation of the canon by constructing a selective list of “authoritative” citations is not unusual (Balbir 2003a: 272). Today, it can be found for instance in the unpublished Sāmācārī of the Sthānakavāsī Kacch Āñh Koñī Nānī Pakùa (personal communication by Ācārya Rāghav). The Unknown Loïkā 217 mendicants. This may have been one of the reasons why, in the decade after the constituent assembly of the Śramaõasaïgha, two official histories of the Sthānakavāsī tradition in Hindī were com- missioned by the Śramaõasaïgha ācārya Ānandçùi and the AISJC respectively to put the significance of the new organisation into a historical perspective.138 The resulting publications are Muni Suśīl- kumār’s (1959) Jainadharma kā Itihās (Pramukhataþ Śrī Śvetām- bara Sthānakavāsī Jainadharma kā Itihās) and Sādhvī Candanā- kumārī’s (1964) Hamārā Itihās: Sthānakavāsī Śramaõ-Sāüskçtik Paramparā kā Paricāyak. Both works built on earlier standard histories of the Sthānakavāsī tradition, but did not make use of the published old sources on Loïkā.139 Suśīlkumār (1959: g) mentions that his work was initially based on an unpublished manuscript of Saubhāgyacandra “Santabāëa”, which was handed to him by the AISJC. Since he saw no historical value in the manuscript, he wrote an entirely new text on the basis of information from leading mendicant scholars and of unspecified historical sources from Bīkāner, which were made available to him by Agarcand Nāhañā in 1957, two years after he started his work.140 Candanākumārī’s book is to a large extent based on Suśīlkumār’s text and offers a crisp summary of the historical literature of the Sthānakavāsīs at the time, but without providing any references.141 Both texts contain extensive sections on Loïkā, on the Sthānakavāsī-dominated “Loïkā- śāha Yuga” and on the “Saïgha Yuga” which begins, according to Suśīlkumār (1959: 2), with the foundation of the Śramaõasaïgha in

138 See Flügel 2000; 2003a. 139 See also Jain & Kumār’s (2003: 109) critique. 140 Suśīlkumār (1959: N) received advice from Ācārya Ānandçùi, Upādhyāy Hastīmal, Upādhyāy Amarmuni, Muni Pyārcand, and “Marudhar Keśarī” Miśrī- mal, i.e. from the Śramaõasaïgha munis who had the greatest interest and ex- pertise in the study of history. 141 She received advice from Ācārya Ānandçùi, Upādhyāy Hastīmal, Upā- dhyāy Amarmuni, Pravartak Pannālāl, “Marudhar Keśarī” Miśrīmal, Muni Ambālāl, Muni Puùkarmuni, and Muni Padmacandra (Prakāśakīya, in Candanā- kumārī 1964: 9). 218 PETER FLÜGEL

1952.142 And both emphasise the differences between the Loïkā- gaccha “yatis”, whose tradition is characterised as negligible “after the 15th century”, and the Sthānakavāsī “sādhus”. Candanākumārī (1964: 105) contends that (in the view of the leading mendicants of the Śramaõasaïgha) the Sthānakavāsī traditions are the true followers of Loïkā’s doctrine (siddhānta) – if not his direct lineal successors.143 In support of this view, she points to the common lay practice of dharmadhyāna in the sthānakas, which she interprets as a replication of the ancient institution of the poùadhaśālā; which, according to early Mūrtipūjaka sources, Loïkā himself is said to have rejected.144 Both authors employ various strategies to bypass the conventional Mūrtipūjaka emphasis on the importance of a continuous teacher lineage for the transmission of the “authentic” Jaina tradition.145 Rather than attempting to construct lists of succession in the form of a single paññāvalī, which is generally not acceptable within the Sthānakavāsī movement due to the continuing existence of competing lineages or sub-groups with independent histories, the texts present chronological lists of important historical personalities in the Sthānakavāsi tradition.146 They begin their respective narratives with èùabha, not with Mahāvīra, whose ancestry is generally favoured: In the work of Bhaõóārī (1938: 85-87), who ignored the Loïkāgaccha tradition entirely, though not Loïkā him-

142 Suśīlkumār 1959: 2 distinguishes five eras: 1. Ādi Yuga (pre 500 before V.S.), 2. Mahāvīra Yuga (500 before V.S. – 2nd century before V.S.), 3. Bhadrabāhu Yuga (2nd century before V.S. – 16th century V.S.). 4. Luïkāśāha Yuga (16th century V.S. – 2007 V.S.), 5. Saïgha Yuga (2007 V.S. – today). See Flügel 2000: 43, n. 11 for other emic periodisations of the Jaina history. 143 vartamān meü pracalit śvetāmbar sthānakavāsī jain-samāj Loïkāgacch kī vartamānkālīn kaçī hai. isī samāj meü hameü āj sahī rūp meü śrī Loïkāśāh- siddhānta ke darśan hote haiü (Candanākumārī 1964: 105). 144 See the sources published by Jñānsundar 1936. 145 Cf. Dundas 1996: 79. 146 The idea for this procedure evidently stems from Ācārya Javāharlāl (1875- 1943) whose arguments were rejected at the Ajmer sammelan in 1933. See Flügel 2003a: 195. On the incompatibility of many Sthānakavāsī paññāvalīs see Ātmārām 1884/1908: 8-11; Vallabhvijay 1891: 67-70; V. M. Śāh 1909: 96ff., 103f.; Jñānsundar 1936: 296-300. The Unknown Loïkā 219 self, it is asserted that “only the Sthānakavāsī sādhus are Mahā- vīra’s true disciples”.147 The opening pages of Bhaõóārī’s book suggest that the only reason for including the tīrthaïkaras of the “Ādi Yuga” (Suśīlkumār) in a “historical” account is to prove the ancienneté of the Jaina tradition vis à vis the competing Hindu and Buddhist traditions. Instead of lists of succession, the concept of a common Sthāna- kavāsī “culture” (saüskçti) is invoked – which figures in the title of Canadanākumārī’s book – with an emphasis on common scriptures and doctrinal principles. The Śramaõasaïgha has also a common code of conduct (sāmācārī);148 but no common rituals and liturgy, which remain different amongst the constituent sampradāyas.149 The “Varddhamāna” Śramaõasaïgha has not been able to construct a single official paññāvalī, because no consensus could be established amongst the leading monks as to which names should be selected. Instead, it produces abhinandana granthas for eminent mendicants within the tradition. These texts comprise paññāvalīs of the respective sub-tradition of a particular monk or nun, but not of the united Śramaõasaïgha as a whole. Accordingly, Suśīlkumār and Candanākumārī present the history of the Sthānakavāsī tradition as a chronology of great individuals and their disciples, not as the history of a single lineage of succession going back to Mahāvīra, Pārśva or even èùabha, as preferred by the constituent sub-groups. Although their contents cannot be described as “mythological”, the narrative form of the texts – the chronology of the deeds of selected great beings – represents a spectrum of compromises between the chronological history of modern historiography and the paññāvalīs and gurvāvalīs on the one hand, and of the cosmologically informed Sthānakavāsī universal

147 phakat sthānakavāsī sādhuja mahāvīr nā sācā śiùya che (Bhaõóārī 1938: 96). 148 AISJC 1987: 71ff. See Flügel 2003a: 195f.; forthcoming (a). 149 Cf. Cort’s definition of gacchas = sampradāyas as “units, defining the boundaries within one can ritually interact” (Cort 1991: 662). 220 PETER FLÜGEL histories à la Jeñhmal on the other.150 As such, the peculiar combi- nations of history (without source references) and legend reflect the particular problems of legitimation of the Śramaõasaïgha. An extreme example of a new Sthānakavāsī universal history is Ācārya Ghāsīlāl’s (1983)151 Sanskrit [sic!] poem Śrī Loïkāśāha Caritam, which associates Loïkā and the Sthānakavāsīs, taken together, directly with Mahāvīrā and Gautama,152 without mentioning any structures of mediation. His mahākāvya, he concedes, is based on hearsay or oral (jabānī) history for which, as the editor Muni Kanhaiyālāl notes in his introduction, no trustworthy evidence exists.153 Kanhaiyālāl’s remarks show that a century of debate on “factual history” has generated a critical awareness within the Jaina tradition that even the questionable attempts of attributing all common doctrinal features of the “Sthānakavāsī” tradition, such as the rejection of image-worship, the “ur-canon” of thirty-two texts, and the permanent wearing of a mukhavastrikā, to the legendary founding father Loïkā, utilise the toolkits of legend, historiography and canonisation.154 The age-old method of excluding and including, compiling and re-compiling, of picking-and-choosing – and invent- ing – authoritative references from the amorphous sediments of the preserved tradition to legitimise contemporary preferences, has, to a certain extent, become self-reflective.155

150 The texts are not stifled by formalism, whose significance for other genres of the Jaina literature was highlighted by Bruhn 1981: 36. Only the information on the “great beings” after Loïkā can claim some historical credibility. 151 Ghāsīlāl (1884-1973) originally belonged to the Sādhumārgī tradition, which left the Śramaõasaïgha in the 1950s. He was apparently made an ācārya by Ācārya Javāharlāl in 1933, but left when Gaõeśīlāl became leader, and founded his own splinter group, which does not exist today. See his disciple Kanhaiyā- lāl’s Bhūmikā, in Ghāsīlāl 1983: 5f.; personal communication of Umeśmuni 13.10.2002. 152 Ghāsīlāl 1983: 2f. 153 Kanhaiyālāl’s Bhūmikā, in Ghāsīlāl 1983: 12. 154 See Bruhn 1987: 107, 111f., also for the term “canon of research”. 155 Although history writing as such was not always an issue, the “delicate balance between objectivity and in-depth analysis ... and aggressivity” is nothing The Unknown Loïkā 221

THE DISCOVERY OF LOðKĀ’S SCRIPTURES Thus far, our cursory review of the development of the pivotal role of Loïkā in the new Sthānakavāsī historiography has shown that received models of “chronological” and “cosmological” history both informed the modern portraits of Loïkā. Features of the two models were creatively mixed during the modern period of revival of the Jaina tradition, which consciously distinguished itself from earlier epochs through an increasing concern with verifiable “facts” as a principal source of legitimation. In the context of renewed sectarian rivalry, the analysis of vernacular Jain sources – which Schubring (1944: vi) saw as the next important step in the history of Jaina research – has started in India earlier than elsewhere. Methodical research was nevertheless largely confined to the post- independence period, probably benefiting from a slight easing of the overt sectarian tensions within the Jaina tradition.156 After more than one hundred years of inquiry, historical sources on Loïkā and the Loïkāgaccha from within the aniconic tradition are still extremely rare.157 The same can be said of critical scholarship of the tradition. The first manuscripts composed by early Loïkāgaccha yatis were discovered and described by Deśāī (1931) in Part II of his ground-breaking study Gūrjar Kavio. Two further new in Jaina religious discourse as Balbir 2003a: 259, 268 has shown with regard to the 16th-century Kharataragaccha monk Samayasundara. Both “canonisation” and “creeping change” and the “reconstruction of history from the point of view of the present” are founded in one-sided interests, strategies of exclusion and inclusion, and in polemics. The contrast between “canonical interest” and “historical interest” proposed by Assmann (1987: 15) is therefore not as sharp in practice as the conceptual distinction suggests. 156 Several factors are responsible for this. Some explicit agreements were made between leading ācāryas to discourage the production and distribution of violently polemical pamphlets which can harm the public image of Jainism as a whole. Overt attacks and ad hominem denunciations are therefore nowadays largely confined to intra-sectarian politics. Another factor was the accomplish- ment of the unification of most Sthānakavāsī traditions, and the end of the main period of institutional reform. 157 There are also hardly any sources concerning the founders of the Sthāna- kavāsī traditions. 222 PETER FLÜGEL texts (see infra) were published by Jñānsundar (1936: 234-240), who was the first monk to emphatically emphasise that only the study of historical sources itself can provide a more reliable picture of Loïkā’s life and work. Detailed information on Loïkāgaccha (and Sthānakavāsī) paññāvalīs – in addition to the unreferenced materials provided by Ātmārām (1884/1903) and Vallabhvijay (1891), Śāh (1909) and Maõilāl (1934), and others – was published in Part III of Deśāī’s (1944: 2205-2222) work. Further historical materials on the Loïkā tradition, such as gurvāvalīs, paññāvalīs, historical poems and lists of bols,158 were unearthed by the next generation of Jaina scholars in the 1950s and 1960s, in particular by Bhanvarlāl Nāhañā (1957), Agarcand Nāhañā (1958; 1964; 1966, etc.), Dalsukhbhāī Mālvaõiyā (1963a; 1963b; 1964; 1965), and Ācārya Hastīmal (1968), who revolutionised the historiography of the aniconic Jaina tradition (see infra). Most of these authors contributed to the Muni Śrī Hajārīmal Smçti Granth, edited by Śobhā- candra Bhārill (1965), which contains further important articles on the literature of the Loïkāgaccha tradition by Muni Kāntisāgar (1965) and Ālamśāh Khān (1965).159 Particularly significant for future research was Ācārya Hastīmal’s (1968) compilation Paññāvalī Prabandh Saïgrah, which made the oldest surviving paññāvalīs of the Loïkāgaccha traditions and the North Indian Sthānakavāsī traditions available for the first time. This fertile period of historical research, during which almost every Sthānakavāsī tradition investigated its own history in order to construct its own paññāvalī, culminated in Hastīmal’s (1987/1995) synopsis of most of the available material on Loïkā in the fourth volume of his monumental work Jaina Dharma kā Maulik Itihās, after which only the book by Duggar (1989) furnished new information on the extinct lineages of the Loïkāgaccha in the Pañjāb. While the outlines of the structure of differentiation of the mendicant lineages of the aniconic tradition became clearly visible by

158 See Nahar 1918: 38, etc. for short inscriptions of the Loïkāgaccha. 159 Another widely read article on Loïkā was written by K. L. Nāhañā (1968). The Unknown Loïkā 223 the end of the 1960s, the teachings of Loïkā, and the doctrinal and organisational differences between Loïkā and the Loïkāgaccha traditions, and the Sthānakavāsī traditions remained almost unknown – and to a large extent still are. The answers to these questions hinge on the credibility of the sources on Loïkā’s teachings, in particular Loïkā’s own writings – which probably neither Jñān- sundar (1936: 97) nor his adversaries had known – since no traces of the rules and regulations of the various Loïkāgaccha traditions, whose practices differed from Loïkā’s own, had ever been discovered. In a series of path-breaking articles, D. D. Mālvaõiyā (1963a, 1963b, 1964, 1965) identified for the first time two manuscripts in the Puõyavijay collection at the L.D. Institute in Ahmedabad which, in his view, can clearly be attributed to Loïkā himself. The publication of this discovery changed the entire discourse on Loïkā. The authenticity of the texts is now accepted within the aniconic tradition itself. They are the only documents which were published by the followers of the Loïkāgaccha itself (Vārīā’s 1976 modern Gujarātī translation, in P. T. Śāh 2001), together with summaries of Hastīmal’s (1968) collection of Loïkāgaccha paññāvalīs. But Mālvaõiyā’s claim has not remained unchallenged, especially by Mūrtipūjaka authors. The manuscripts can be attributed to Loïkā in terms of their 160 contents, which clearly relate to the beliefs of Loïkā or the Loïkā tradition, and because both of the two key texts mention “Luïkā” or the “Luïkāmatī” at the end;161 though Loïkā’s name has been deliberately cut out at two places at the beginning and at the end of the Ms. Luïkā nā Saddahiyā ane Kariyā Añhāvan Bol, as Mālva-

160 ukt donoü partiyoü kā sīdhā sambandh lokāśāh se avaśya hai. kyoüki lokāśāh ke mat ko, unkī vicārdhārā ko usmeü spaùñ rūp meü prastut kiyā gayā hai (Mālvaõiyā 1964: 366). 161 e sarva Luïkāmatī nī yukti chai (Luïkā nī Huõóī 34 Bol) (L.D. Institute Ms. No. 4121). The early sources always use the term mata, doctrine or sect, and never gaccha, order, sect or school, as a designation of the Loïkā tradition. 224 PETER FLÜGEL

õiyā (1964: 381) has pointed out.162 Mālvaõiyā (1964: 366, 1965: 188) believed that Loïkā was either the author of these texts, or that the texts have been written under his instruction, since his opponents would have used the Sanskrit term Luüpaka for Luïkā, although no final proof has been furnished yet. Śeñh (1964: 54) disputed Mālvaõiyā’s argument and attributed both texts to the Sthānakavāsī ācārya Dharmasiïha. His views were comprehen- sively rejected by Hastīmal (1995: 759-789)163 because of the “lack of proof”, and with reference to Pārśvacandra Sūri’s164 text Lūïkāe Pechela 13 Praśna ane Tenā Uttarī, which cites Loïkā’s questions concerning image-worship: why should vandana be performed to non-living entities, why are sādhus not allowed to perform dravya pūjā, etc.165 This 16th-century text is now routinely referred to as a significant source for Loïkā’s views, which indirectly confirms the authenticity of the disputed texts.166

162 iti ... Luïkā nā saddahiyā anaī Luïkā nā kariyā añhāvana bola anaī teha- nuü vicāra likhauü chai. śubhaü bhavatu sramaõasaïghāya, śrī (L.D. Institute Ms. No. 2989). Mālvaõiyā’s view is still vigorously opposed by orthodox followers of the Mūrtipūjaka tradition, who point out that the manuscript had been tampered with. Even today, many Mūrtipūjaka libraries, such as the Kailāśa- sāgarasūri Jñān Mandir of the Śrī Mahāvīr Jaina Ārādhana Kendra in Kobā, restrict access to texts of the aniconic tradition which criticise Mūrtipūjaka practices. 163 Hastīmal (1995: 759ff.) disproved Śeñh’s (1964: 43) “sectarian” view that Loïkā had only a few followers with citations from the Tapāgaccha paññāvalīs, and that his views were adharmik (Śeñh 1964: 46) and that he had no knowledge of Ardhamāgadhī (p. 25) with Āgama citations from Loïkā’s Aññhāvan Bol. 164 The founder of the Pārśvacandragaccha. 165 The thirteen questions, a selection of the longer text (L.D. Institute Mss. No. 24466, 30565), were published by Hastīmal (1995: 694f.) and re-published by Jain and Kumār (2003: 539-541), who also rendered the text into Hindī (Jain & Kumār 2003: 115-117). 166 Jain & Kumār 2003: 115-117. Hastīmal 1995: 762 also refers to Pārśva- candrasūri’s Sthāpanā Pañcāśikā, which was not accessible to me. The Unknown Loïkā 225

LOðKĀ’S FIFTY-EIGHT PROCLAMATIONS The first manuscript attributed to “Loïkā”, No. 2989, has been dated by Mālvaõiyā (1964: 381) to the 17th century CE. It contains three texts which, judging on the evidence of the handwriting and the format of the texts, must have been written by three different individuals. The main text, Luïkā nā Saddahiyā ane Luïkā nā Kariyā Añhāvana Bolo (L), “Loïkā’s beliefs and fifty-eight assertions created by Loïkā”,167 has Loïkā’s name in its title. It is clearly the oldest text of the three. The text is framed by an untitled index of the fifty-eight topics at the beginning of the Ms., and at the end by a list of fifty-four questions to unnamed opponents, which is generally referred to as Keha nī Paramparā Chai (K), “Whose tradition is this?”, in the secondary literature. Both of these supple- mentary texts, the index and the praśnottara text, must have been added sometime after the completion of the core text, which is the only document of “Loïkā” which contains not just questions to opponents, but also positive doctrinal statements.168 The main text (L) consists largely of selected quotations (uddharaõa) from the Śvetāmbara scriptures, on both ethical and abstract doctrinal issues concerning Jaina mendicants as well as laity, and renditions of their meaning in Old Gujarātī. At the beginning of the text the citations form a logical sequence on samyaktva which can be read as an entirely new text on the “essence” of the Jaina scriptures, although many subsequent statements take the form of questions and can be attributed to the praśnottara genre. The method of weaving selected citations together to form a new text is not fundamentally

167 The original text was published for the first time by Mālvaõiyā (1963a), then together with a modern Gujarātī translation by Vārīā (1976), and again by Hastīmal (1995: 655-693). A Gujarātī summary of this text has been published by P. T. Śāh (2001), and a Hindī rendition by Jain and Kumār (2003: 124-139), who also re-published the version by Hastīmal and a copy of an unspecified hand-written manuscript of the text in an appendix (Jain & Kumār 2003: 503- 537). 168 Only a future comparison of different manuscripts can establish whether K is always presented in conjunction with L. 226 PETER FLÜGEL different from the method of compilation of the Āgamas themselves. Loïkā’s work can therefore be interpreted as a case of secondary canonisation, since many of his tenets are still reflected in the Sthānakavāsī literature, although their original handwritten sources are either lost or hidden away. There are, as Bruhn (1987: 106) has indicated, many examples of canonisation outside the canon in the Jain tradition; and generally the post-canonical literatures achieve a higher degree of closure than the canon itself; which Schubring (1910: 63) pointedly described as a “chaos of atoms”. Considering its form, content and function, it would be misleading to classify Loïkā’s siddhānta as an instance of a mere literature of use (Gebrauchsliteratur),169 that is as an ad hoc com- position, since, de facto, Loïkā’s teachings established an entirely new doctrinal school within the Jaina tradition. The text starts with Āyāra 1.4.1, the precursor of the later ahiüsā vrata, which uses the term dayāiü dharma, or law of compassion, to describe the law of non-violence. Āyāra 1.4.2.3-6 is then cited in the second statement which comprises the rejection of the negation of this proposition: many Brāhmaõas and Śramaõas say that there is nothing wrong in injuring living beings, but this is not true because all living beings fear pain. The third bol cites Āyāra 1.4.2.1-2 which describes the necessity to discriminate between actions which cause the influx (āsrava) of karma and actions which destroy karma (nirjarā). The fourth and fifth bols establish the importance of the law of compassion (non-violence) as the sole path to liberation (Sūyagaóa 17), by contrasting it to violence, which produces only suffering (Sūyagaóa 18). Bol 6 and 7 use for the first time more than one citation within a sustained argument, and leave the monastic sphere behind in order to apply the basic

169 Cf. Bruhn 1981: 18. In her 4th Annual Lecture on Jainism at the London School of Oriental and African Studies on the 17.3.2004, “Thoughts on the meaning and the role of the Śvetāmbara canon in the history of Jainism”, Nalini Balbir introduced the term “canon of use” which can be usefully applied in this case; though the difference between a primary and secondary canon is merely a matter of degree. The Unknown Loïkā 227 principles of bol 1-5 “with discrimination” to the case of image- worship.170 Point 6 establishes that unavoidable violence committed in the course of the prescribed duties of a monk, such as crossing a river, must be counteracted through atonements (prāyaścitta), and asks why the same rule is not applied to the image worship of the laity. Bol 7 argues that “according to the scriptures (siddhānta)” the path of liberation (mokùamārga) cannot be entered through image worship, since it only produces worldly gratification (phal). Any other interpretation is “opposed to the scriptures” (sūtra viruddha). Bol 8 states that liberation can only be accomplished by observing the five mahāvratas, the guptis and samitis on the level of the mendicants, and the bārah vrata, and the ùaóāvaśyaka rituals, etc., on the level of the laity, but not through image-worship, which most of the remaining bols address. Mālvaõiyā (1964: 382) classified the contents of L into three broad categories: samyaktva and mithyātva;171 the inauthenticity of the commentary literature; and the problems associated with mūrti- pūjā,172 such as image-making and installation, prasāda, the sthā- panā nikùepa, and the term caitya (Pkt. ceiya).173 Other categories could be created, for instance concerning the prominent issues of tīrtha yātrā,174 lay or mendicant practices (generally all points concerning image-worship imply lay conduct), or assertions addressing particular opponents, such as in L 30 (Āgamikagaccha’s rejection of pūjā with flowers) or L 26, which questions the scriptural basis for the dispute between the view of the A(ñ)calagaccha (and Kaóuāgaccha) that only the laity can perform pratiùñþās and other Mūrtipūjaka sects which regard the performance of this ceremony

170 Most praśnottara texts address issues in the religious life “of the mendicant as well as of the layman” (Balbir 2003a: 259), which reflects the prevalence of “fourfold”, etc., sectarian forms of organisation. 171 L 1-9, 17, 20-21, 40-52, 54-55, 58. 172 L 7-16, 18-19, 22-32, 34-39, 42, 53, 56. 173 L 57. 174 L 53 points to the inner journey advocated by Viy 18.10.4 for instance. 228 PETER FLÜGEL as a prerogative of the mendicants.175 Only one statement (No. 27) explicitly refers to the Digambaras, asking where in the scriptures the issue of the naked representation of tīrthaïkaras is discussed, which is controversial between Digambaras and Śvetāmbaras. The analysis of the contents and exegetical procedures em- ployed by the author of this text requires a separate study. A cursory view shows that all selected texts belong to the canonical literature (of thirty-two scriptures), though no new classification of the Āgamas is offered. Mālvaõiyā (1964: 378) argued that Loïkā only rejected those passages in the commentaries which are not in agreement with the scriptures, which made the creation of a new canon unnecessary.176 He suggested that the various canons of the aniconic traditions were products of the early Loïkāgaccha and Sthānakavāsī traditions.177 These are open questions. The commentary literature – which the author of L evidently knew – is expli-

175 Balbir 2003b: 57 refers to “some inscriptions” as evidence for the view that A(ñ)calgaccha mendicants “take help from ācāryas belonging to other groups” for pratiùñhā. 176 Mālvaõiyā 1964: 377 cites the key passage of Loïkā’s texts, and asks what harm there is to accept the commentaries which are in agreement with the sūtras: ‘niryukti, bhāùya, cūrõī, vçtti aur ñīkāoü meü jo sūtra viruddha bāteü haiü, unheü pramāõ kaise mānā jā saktā hai?’ lekin jinkā siddhānta sūtroü ke sāth meü mel baiñh jātā hai, unheü pramāõ mānne meü kyā hāni hai? He suggests that, judging on the basis of the two Mss., Loïkā himself must have been of this view (Mālvaõiyā 1964: 378). 177 According to Dharmasāgara’s Pravacanaparīkùā, in Mālvaõiyā 1964: 378, some of Loïkā’s followers accepted twenty-seven scriptures, and others twenty- nine. Earlier Loïkāgaccha sources, such as Bhānucandra’s Dayādharma Caupāī, already mention the Loïkāgaccha canon of thirty-two scriptures, though the canon of thirty-two may have originated with the Sthānakavāsī ācārya Jīvarāja. The modern association of a canon of thirty-one with Loïkā seems to go back to Ātmārām 1881/1954, II: 519; 1888/1906: 204; in Vallabhvijay 1891: 131. Ātmārām wrote that the Vavahāra was added by the Sthānakavāsīs, whereas Jñānsundar (1936: 106) argued that it was the “Āvaśyaka Sūtra”. Suśīlkumār (1959: 395, 431f.) tells us that the Sthānakavāsī ācārya Jīvarāja (died ca. 1641) created the present canon of thirty-two scriptures. Mālvaõiyā (1964: 378f.) also believes that it was created after the emergence of the Sthānakavāsīs, because in all cases only thirty-two are mentioned in the later literature. See Flügel 2000: 49, n. 18 and 59, n. 38. The Unknown Loïkā 229 citly rejected in L 41, with reference to additional insertions concerning image worship which cannot be found in the original text, and in L 57, which argues that the elaboration of exceptions (apa- vāda) of the prescriptions of the Āgamas in the commentary litera- ture178 opens the door to laxity. However, the claim that Loïkā rejected the entire Śvetāmbara commentary literature in the name of a “fundamentalist scriptural literalism”,179 seems too broad, since all aniconic traditions accept the “philological commentary”, while rejecting the “canonical commentary”, which while explaining the meaning of the scriptures also mediates creatively between the closed canon and the openness of the world.180 If L was really composed by Loïkā, and there are more arguments in favour than against this assumption, then there can be no doubt that he propagated the necessity for the mendicants to observe the five mahāvratas, and for the laity to observe the twelve lay vows (which include the poùadha vrata), the āvaśyaka rituals (sāmāyika, caturviüśatistava etc.), and to support the ascetics with offerings of food, upāśrayas, etc., if they wish to reap the fruit of salvation (mokùa nāü phal).181 He rejected, however, all rituals which are predicated on violence (against flowers and fruits, water, fire, etc.). The claim by his early Mūrtipūjaka opponents,182 which Jñānsundar (1936: 98ff.) and Śeñh (1964) cited in support of their

178 For instance, in the Āvassaya Nijjutti or the Bçhatkalpabhāùya. 179 Dharmasāgara, in Dundas 1996: 74; 2002: 62. See also Mālvaõiyā’s (1964: 376) critique of the “hard” (dççh) dogmatism of the Sthānakavāsīs, who in his view do not tolerate differences of opinion. 180 The terms are from Assmann 1987: 13f. 181 ... tathā śrāvaka naiü bāra vrata pālyā nāü phal śrī uvavāī upāïga tathā sāmāiya cauvīsatthao ityādi āvaśyaka nāü phal ānuyogadvāra madhye, tathā śrāvaka naiü ju sādhu cāritrīā vandanīka chaiü tu sādh unai vāüdyā nāü phal, tathā sādhu nī paryupāsti kīdhā nāü phal tathā annā pāõī dīdhā nāü phal tathā upāśraya dīdhā nāü phal, tathā vastra pātra dīdhā nāü phal ityādi (L 8). 182 See the Asūtranirākaraõa Batrīśī of Muni Bīkā of 1470/1, the Siddhānta Caupāī of Muni Lāvaõyasamay of 1486/7, and the Siddhānta Sāroddhāra of Upādhyāya Kamalsaüyam of the Kharataragaccha in 1487/8. The Loïkāśāha Siloko vv. 13-15 of 1543/4 by the Loïkāgaccha yati Keśavçùi also contains similar statements, which is difficult to explain. 230 PETER FLÜGEL own views, that Loïkā had rejected the standard Jaina sāmāyika, pratikramaõa, poùadha, dāna etc. rituals entirely,183 is neither con- firmed by the two published manuscripts of “Loïkā”, nor by his “thirteen questions”.184 The Dayādharma Caupāī vv. 15-19 of 1521/2 of the Loïkāgaccha yati Bhānucandra185 explicitly mentions the practice of two sāmāyikas (in the morning and evening), one- day poùadha, pratikramaõa (not without taking a vow), pratyā- khyāna, dāna to restrained individuals, bhāva pūjā (but not dravya pūjā), and the belief in thirty-two Āgamas (v. 19) within his own group;186 Jñānsundar (1936: 237, n. 1) explains this away as the re- sult of a post-Loïkā reform, and further argued that no such lay rites could have been practised before probably Bhāõā introduced them, because the śrāvaka pratikramaõa is not part of the Āvaśya- ka Sūtra (Niryukti) amongst the thirty-two accepted Āgamas, and because it is known that both Loïkā and Kaóuā were householders who rejected the sāmāyika (Jñānsundar 1936: 105-107). Yet, the statement that Kaóuā was “also” against the sāmāyika is obviously fabricated, since several points of Kaóuā’s Niyamāvalī demand its performance.187 Without taking note of Jñānsundar’s writings,

183 Jñānsundar 1936: 29, 97, App. 3; Mālvaõiyā 1964: 367f.; Dundas 2002: 248. 184 kintu Loïkāśāh ke 58 boloü evaü 13 praśnoü ādi meü kahīü koī ek bhī aisā śabda nahīü. ... Loïkāśāh ke virodha meü likhane vāle vidvānoü ke dvārā kiye gaye ullekhoü meü sthān-sthān par is prakār ke tathyoü kī andekhī dçùñigocar hotī hai (Hastīmal 1995: 751, cf. 759-789). 185 sāmāika ñālaiü be bāra, parva pare posaha parihār, paóikkamaõuü bina vrata na karaiü, paccakhāõai kima āgāra dharaiü (17). ñālai asaüyati naiü dāna, bhāva pūjā thī rūóau jñāna, dravya pūjā navi kahī jinarāja, dharma nāmaiü hiüsāi akāja (18). sūtra batīsa sācā saddahyā, samatā bhāve sādhu kahyā, siri Luïkā no sācco dharma, bhrame paçiyā na lahai marma (19) (Bhānucandra, in Jñānsundar 1936: 236). 186 This is evidently the first reference to the thirty-two Āgamas in the Jaina literature, which points to a pre-Sthānakavāsī origin of this classification. 187 Dundas 1999: 22. Jñānsundar 1936: 327 also cites Kaóuā’s list, but com- ments on the relevant point 4 (point 6 in Dundas’ list) that Kaóuā may have included it in the list to distinguish himself on paper from Loïkā: śāyad lauükā- The Unknown Loïkā 231

Mālvaõiyā (1964: 367f.) merely mentions that the difference of opinion between Loïkā and the Mūrtipūjakas over these issues developed only when in Saüvat 1544 Loïkā met Lakhamsī, who became his first associate. But Hastīmal (1995: 786-788) points out that nowhere in Loïkā’s own writings is sāmāyika, poùadha, prati- kramaõa, pratyākhyāna or dāna rejected in principle. What is rejected is the manner in which these rituals are performed or not performed, for instance the ostentatious giving of gold and money in the context of pratiùñhā, etc., rituals. He also notices that there is no mentioning of any opposition to sāmāyika, pratikramaõa, poùadha, etc. in the report on the meeting between Bhāõā and Kaóuā in Saüvat 1539 in the Kaóuvāmat Paññāvalī (Paññāvalī Parāga Saügraha, p. 483), which would have recorded a debate between the two if Bhāõā had indeed not practiced these rituals which Kaóuā himself observed.188 Another controversial issue is whether Loïkāgaccha mendicants observed the mahāvratas, or whether they were yatis in the modern sense of half-ascetics from the outset; as apparently the Kaóuāgaccha ascetics were, though this remains doubtful (Klatt 1888: 58f.; Dundas 1999: 21, cf. 30, n. 11). Modern commentators such as V. M. Śāh (1909: 49f.), Jñānsundar (1936: 97ff.), and Mālvaõiyā (1964: 367-369), who stressed the difference between Loïkāgaccha “yatis” and Sthānakavāsī “sādhus”, expressed the opinion (backed by the reports of the Mūrtipūjakas Dharmasāgara and Kamalsaüyam) that the first leader of the Loïkāgaccha, Bhāõā, was known for not observing the mahāvratas and for not wearing the dress of a sādhu.189 He therefore must have been a yati, i.e. neither a householder nor a monk; which would turn the Sthā-

śāh ne sāmāyik ko bhī asvīkār kiyā thā, isī lie kaóuāśāh ko yah niyam banānā karā ho (p. 327, n. 4). 188 Hastīmal 1995: 750 also points to the absence of any polemic along these lines in critique of Loïkā in the Digambara muni Ratnanandī’s Bhadrabāhu Caritra 158-163 of Saüvat 1625. 189 A different picture is painted in the much younger Vinaycandrajī-kçt Paññāvalī, published by Hastīmal (1968: 141). 232 PETER FLÜGEL nakavāsī mendicants into the first truly pañca-mahāvratī ascetics of the aniconic tradition. If this is indeed true, then already the practices of the earliest Loïkāgaccha ascetics would not have corresponded with the principles of Loïkā, as articulated in L. L ends with the statement that mokùa can only be reached through the practice of protecting life (jīvadayā),190 even now [sic!] and in future by everyone, as stated in the Sūyagaóa:

O ye monks, the virtuous (Jinas) that have been and will be, the followers of the law of Kaśyapa, they all have commended these virtues. Do not kill living beings in the threefold way, being intent on your spiritual welfare and abstaining from sins. In this way numberless men have reached perfection [siddhā], and others, who live now, and who are to come, (will reach it) (Sūy 1.2.3.20-21, translated by Jacobi).

Loïkā’s main (“ekānta”)191 focus was the doctrine of dayā dharma, or the law of compassion.192 His interpretation of jīvadayā is, however, restricted to practising abstinence from violence in general, and does not explicitly recommend an active intervention into the world for the saving of life, as advocated today by most Sthānaka- vāsī traditions. Since L presents such practices as an aspect of worldly conduct, but not of the mokùamārga, this text could be cited in favour of Ācārya Bhikùu’s interpretation of the dividing

190 jīvadayāiü karī mokùa puhatā (L 58). 191 L 46. See Mālvaõiyā’s (1964: 373-375) critique of the “one-sidedness” of Loïkā’s niścaya-naya approach, which does not take into account practical considerations of religious instruction for beginners: dharma kī jo sādhana 13veü guõasthāna se 14veü guõasthāna meü jāne ke lie hotī hai, vahī sādhanā pratham guõasthāna vāle ke lie bhī āvaśyak hai – is prakār kā āgrah karne se sāmānya vyakti ko dharma ke mārga par kaise lāyā jā saktā hai? sādhanā ke mārga par is prakār ekānta āgrah se kām nahīü caltā. kyoüki sabhī sādhakoü kī yogyatā samān nahīü ho saktī. This critique echoes the standard criticisms of the views of the Terāpanth ācārya Bhikùu. The additional criticism, directed at the Sthānakavāsīs, that their emphasis on dayā unduly neglects the importance of knowledge is, partly, polemical: sthānakavāsī paramparā jñān-śūnya ban gaī (Mālvaõiyā 1964: 376). 192 See L 17 for a lengthy list of citations from the Āgamas using the term dayā in defence of his choice of catchphrase. The Unknown Loïkā 233 line between laukika and lokottara dharma, though his controversial equation of puõya and pāpa, from the niścaya point of view, is not discussed in the text.193 Notably, the text does not reject religious property per se, but declares the gift of upāśrayas (= sthāna- kas) to the mendicants (sādhu) as a religious act.

LOðKĀ’S THIRTY-FOUR PROCLAMATIONS The second manuscript, No. 4121, contains only one text, Luïkā nī Huõóī 34 Bol (=LH), Loïkā’s list of thirty-four assertions,194 which gives thirty-three examples from the commentaries for significant deviations from the scriptures under the label of apavāda, or exception. The statements No. 1-25 criticise various points of the Niśītha Cūrõī, which cannot be found in the Nisīha, No. 26 does the same for the Uttarādhyayana Vçtti, No. 27 for the Vyavahāra Vçtti, Nos. 28-33 for the Āvaśyaka Niryukti, and the last section for the Pra- jñāpanā Vçtti. The underlying ordering principle of the diverse list of topics is the reference to the five mahāvratas. More than one example is given for excuses for the exceptional use of violence in self-defence (Nos. 1, 22, 26); for the violation of the vow on non- possession (Nos. 3, 4); for the violation of the vow of not taking what is not given (Nos. 2, 18, 28, 29); for the violation of the vow of celibacy (Nos. 14, 15, 23);195 and for using living objects such as water, fire, earth, food, plants, etc., in various contexts. Because the text focuses only on explicit discrepancies between canonical and

193 Cf. Mālvaõiyā 1964: 373f., and Jain and Kumār’s (2003: 140) summary of the text, which would also support this interpretation. 194 Mālvaõiyā 1964: 382 cites the text as Luïkā nī Huõóī 33 Bol. It was however published with an explanation in Hindī under the title Cauütīs Bol (34 assertions) by Hastīmal (1995: 648-655), and re-published under the same title by Jain and Kumār (2003: 499-503), who also give a summary in Hindī (Jain & Kumār 2003: 120-124). The numerical difference can be explained by the fact that Mālvaõiyā did not count bol No. 34, because it contains only the general statement that only on the basis of the scriptures progress can be achieved. 195 See U. P. Shah 1955b for an inscription documenting historical cases. 234 PETER FLÜGEL post-canonical monastic law, and on the use of prāyaścittas for normalising transgressions (No. 23), image-worship is not mentioned at all, and neither are issues of contemporary practice. Interestingly, both the Vavahāra and the Āvassaya Sutta are implicitly referred to, which are often cited in the modern secondary literature as the two texts whose canonical status may have been disputed between the early Loïkāgaccha and the Sthānakavāsī traditions.196

LOðKĀ’S FIFTY-FOUR QUESTIONS TO THE IMAGE-WORSHIPPERS The fifty-four rhetorical questions Whose tradition is that? (Te Keha nī Paramparā Chai?),197 which are appended to the Añhāvan Bol in the L.D. Institute Ms. 2989, effectively ask (like some of the Añhāvan Bols) whether any of the listed practices (not beliefs), which must have been prevalent amongst the image-worshipping Jaina traditions of the time, are backed up by the “root” scriptures.198 Since the answer is assumed to be “no” in all cases, the main function of the questions is to provide summary criticism of the key shortcomings of the addressees of these questions, which in accordance with the etiquette of the praśnottara genre are not explicitly mentioned. Fifty-two almost identical questions which were attributed to Loïkā were published in Hindī in the fourth edition of Muni Jeñhmal’s (1930: 14f.) polemical work Samakita- sāra.199 The content of this slightly shorter list overlaps to a large

196 See Flügel 2000: 18. 197 The text was first published by Mālvaõiyā (1963a: 80-82), and reprinted in Hastīmal 1995: 691-693, and from Hastīmal’s publication (without an indication of the original source) in Jain & Kumār 2003: 537-539. A Hindī summary can also be found in Jain & Kumār 2003: 118-120. 198 See Samayasundara’s question “What are the textual references for such and such a rite, usage, etc.?” in his Sāmācārī Śataka cited by Balbir 2003a: 267. 199 Fourth edition with Hindī translation by Muni Devçùi (1872-1929), who became the ācārya of the Sthānakavāsī Mālvā èùi Sampradāya after Amolakçùi’s death, and was the predecessor of Ānandçùi (1901-1963), the second ācārya of The Unknown Loïkā 235 extent with K, but comprises some extra questions, which points to the existence of other recensions which are yet to be unearthed, or to later interpolations.200 The original text (K) can be translated as follows: The tradition is written. Someone says, Śrī Vīra’s tradition says this. Where is that?201

1. To cause images to be made and to be installed (maõóāvai) in the house, whose tradition is that?202 To buy male and female disciples (celā-celī), whose tradition is that?203 2. To give initiation to small children, whose tradition is that?204 3. To change the name (to give a different name at the time of initiation), whose tradition is that? 4. To cause the ear to be extended (vadhārai), whose tradition is that?205 5. To venerate (viharai) the forgiving guru (in the presence of symbols), whose tradition is that?206 the Śramaõasaïgha in which the Mālvā èùi Sampradāya was incorporated in 1952. See Flügel 2000: 70, n. 62. 200 Jeñhmal 1930: 14 has as question No. 6: ghoçā, rath, bail, óolī meü baiñhte ho. – To sit on a horse, chariot, bullock (-cart) or litter carried by porters; No. 8: ghar jākar kalpa sūtra paçhte ho. – To read the Kalpa Sūtra after going to a house; No. 12: rassī óore dete ho. – To give strings of rope (as blessings); No. 13: mantra, jantra, jhāç phūk karte ho. – To perform mantra, yantra, exorcism; 14. pustak, pātare becte ho. – To sell leafs of a book (to sell knowledge); 15. māl uçāte ho. – To indulge in property; 25. ñīp likhā rupaye lete ho. – To take money for writing documents; 29. tapasyā karākar paise lete ho. – To accept money after performing a fast; 45. mor piñch ke óaõóāsaõ rakhte ho. – To keep a peacock feather staff (Digambara style); 46. strī kā saïghaññā karte ho. – To keep the company of women; 49. kapçe dhulāte ho. – To cause clothes to be washed. These are standard complaints against “domesticated” Jain mendicants. 201 On the uses of written texts in earlier medieval Jaina debates see Granoff 1993, and also Dundas 1996. On the role of written texts for the “protestant” Jaina reform movements see Flügel 2000: 38, 46. 202 Jain and Kumār (2003: 118) have ghar meü pratimā banavāne yā citrit karavāne. This sentence appears in Jeñhmal 1930: 14 as No. 24: māõóvī karāte ho. 203 This sentence has only been published in Hindī in Jeñhmal 1930: 14. It is not related to the first sentence of point 1, and should have been listed separate- ly. The laxities of (some) medieval Mūrtipūjaka mendicants are well documented in an inscription published by U. P. Shah 1955b. 204 On bāl dīkùā see Balbir 2001. 205 Or “split”. On ascetics piercing their ears see Wujastyk 1984. 236 PETER FLÜGEL

6. To amuse oneself (viharai)207 sitting in the householder’s house, whose tradition is that? 7. To go every day to the same house (for food), whose tradition is that?208 8. To ask (someone) to take a bath, whose tradition is that?209 9. To make use (prajuüjai) of the secret of astrology, whose tradition is that? 10. To tell the future, whose tradition is that?210 11. To cause a reception to be held at the time of entering into a town, whose tradition is that? 12. To consecrate sweets, whose tradition is that? 13. To cause the worship of religious books, whose tradition is that? 14. To cause the performance of saïghapūjā, whose tradition is that?211

206 The word khamāsamāsaõu refers to the vandanā ritual to the kùamāśrama- õa, which begins with the words icchāmi khamā-samaõo vandiuü – I desire to venerate you forgiving monk, which Mūrtipūjaka ascetics (and laity) also perform in front of symbolic objects representing the guru, such as the sthāpanā- cārya, and in front of statues (caitya vandanā). See Leumann 1934: 7-10; Williams 1983: 199-203; Cort 2001: 65. The sentence is interpreted by Jain and Kumār (2003: 118) as: “khamāsaõā guru ko diyā jātā haim, dev ko nahīü”. The issue is also addressed in Samayasundara’s Sāmācārī Śataka 1 etc. (Balbir 2003a: 261). 207 Also: to spend time. 208 A common mistake, known in the scriptures as nitya-piõóa or nitiya-piõóa. 209 Jain and Kumār (2003: 118) have: snān karne kā kahanā aur snān karnā. – To ask (someone) to take a bath and to take a bath. LH 19 criticises that the Niśītha Cūrõī permits taking a bath under certain circumstances, although the scriptures prohibit it unequivocally for mendicants. The question may also address the obligatory practice of image-worshipping lay Jainas to take a bath before entering the temple in order to “purify” themselves outwardly. See Williams 1983: 221, and Laidlaw 1995: 273 on the “incongruence between purity in puja and purity in asceticism”. 210 In Rājasthānī (R.) kalavāüõī, means “dirty water” (Lālas 1986-87: 208). The question may thus alternatively refer to sacitta water that is left over from the ablutions of the ascetics and/or images, and distributed as a sacred object, or to “raw” water used at certain ritual consecrations. Cf. Williams 1983: 224. Jain and Kumār (2003: 118) have kalavānī karke dete haiü. 211 There are two uses of the term: (1) The prime recipients of the saïghapūjā, which Williams 1983: 166 described as a “later development”, are the mendicants, who during an annual ceremony (at the end of paryuùaõa) receive at once “blankets, cloth, needles, thread, staves, almsbowls, rajoharaõas, and other objects useful to an ascetic”. Jeñhmal 1930: 14 (question No. 18) uses the expression “to extract” (nikalnā) the saïghapūjā. (2) The “worship of the congrega- The Unknown Loïkā 237

15. To perform installation ceremonies (of idols), whose tradition is that?212 16. To give books during paryuùaõa, whose tradition is that?213 17. And to sell pilgrimages, whose tradition is that?214 18. And to give a certain amount,215 whose tradition is that? 19. And to bind garlands made of vegetation to arched gateways, whose tradition is that? 20. To keep specially prepared food (ādhākarma) for the ascetics in the poùadhaśālā,216 whose tradition is that?217 tion” may also involve “giving every participant at some public religious function a small amount of money (usually a one-rupee coin) and a red forehead mark as a token of respect” (Cort 2001: 150). Saïghapūjā is, for instance, performed in connection with the visit of prominent ascetics to the residence of a householder. The host invites his family and friends to participate in this event and prepares kunkum for auspicious tilakas on the fronts of their heads and distributes money to each visitor after the monk or nun has left – a kind of pra- sāda (personal communication K. Śeñh). 212 This question reflects L 26. The A(ñ)calagaccha did/does not allow this for its own mendicants. See Balbir 2003b: 57. 213 Jeñhmal 1930: 14 understands this as: paryuùaõ meü pothī, de rātra jāgaraõ karāte. – To cause night watches to be done to books given out during paryuùaõ. Loïkā thus may have rejected the veneration of books as objects. Often, manuscripts are copied or books printed in honour of deceased parents, whose names are mentioned in the introductory sections of a text, and then offered to the mendicants during paryuùaõa. The objection may also have been directed against the payments for something that has been produced especially for the mendicants, or, more likely, against motivating the laity to auction the privilege of taking the Kalpa Sūtra home for one night. 214 For allocating the honour of leading specific rituals, auctions (bolī) are routinely held in many Jaina traditions. In the question, the practice of bidding for the privilege of leading the saïgha yātrā as a caitya paripāñī is addressed. Williams 1983: 234 indirectly confirms Loïkā’s suspicion. He writes: “The tīrtha-yātrā seems to be a later development”. 215 The contextual meaning of mātra is unclear here. It could mean measure, a certain amount of money, etc. Jain and Kumār (2003: 118) interpret the half- sentence as: mātrā (prasravaõ) dene, prasravaõa meaning flow, outflow. 216 posāliü; see R. posāla, S. pāñhaśālā. The poùadhaśālā is a special room that is used for the collective performance of a one-day fast, or poùadha, during which the practising laity imitates the lifestyle of the ascetics. A variety of fasts can be performed. Because not all of them require the complete renunciation of all nourishment, food and drink may be brought to the poùadhaśālā from home (Yaśovijay, in Williams 1983: 145). Since poùadha does not involve performing an almsround, only specially prepared food can be eaten. Therefore, Loïkā must have disagreed with eating food at all during poùadha, apparently in agreement 238 PETER FLÜGEL

21. To create the impression of the importance of the scriptures but not reading them, whose tradition is that?218 22. To cause decorative pavilions (for images) to be constructed, whose tradition is that?219 23. To cause the fast in the name of220 “Gautama” to be performed, whose tradition is that? 24. To cause the “Saüsāratāraõa” (vow to be taken), whose tradition is that?221 25. To cause the “Candanabālā” fast to be performed, whose tradition is that?222 26. To cause the “ladder of gold and silver” (sonā rūpā nī nīsaraõī) to be created, whose tradition is that?223 with the A(ñ)calagaccha and the Kāóuāgaccha, but in contrast with the Tapā- gaccha and Kharataragaccha (Samayasundara) at the time (cf. Balbir 2003b: 60). 217 Ādhākarma is discussed in L 21 as well. 218 Loïkā advocated open access to the scriptures. 219 The word māõóavī (H. maõóapa) can also signify a temple, or the entrance hall of a temple. 220 Literally, the sound or echo (paçagho, G. paóaghī). Jeñhmal 1930: 46-52 lists fifteen practices opposed to the scriptures (sūtra) which the hiüsā dharmī, i.e. the image-worshippers, associate with the name of Gautama. Vārīā 1976: 129 explains the question as: gautam paóaghā nuü tap karāve che. Jain and Kumār (2003: 119) read the word paçagho as pratipadā (paçvā) – the first day of the lunar fortnight. Though Jeñhmal does not mention this, the question may also refer to the sūrimantra (cf. Dundas 1998) which is addressed explicitly in questions 45 and 46, or, more likely, to Gautama’s invocation during the annual pūjā of the account books at Dīpāvalī (cf. Cort 2001: 168-70). 221 Saüsāra-tāraõa means literally “to cross the ocean of existence”. John Cort informed me that this practice is listed as a fast in the Tapāgaccha monk Jinendravijaygaõi’s Taporatna Mahodadhi (Lākhāvāëa-Śāntipuri: Harùapuùpā- mçta Jaina Granthamālā 101, 1982) which is based on the Kharataragaccha ācārya Vardhamāna’s 15th-century Ācāradinakara. Jeñhmal 1930: 14 speaks of the Saüsāra-tāraõa “telā”, i.e. a continuous three-day fast. Most, if not all, of the practices mentioned in questions Nos. 24-27 are likely to be special fasts, which involve auctions of the meritorious act of giving the first drink and food to a tapasvin(ī) to conclude, or “break”, the fast (pāraõa). 222 This fast takes four days: three one-day fasts (upavāsa), followed by one day eating only one meal (ekāsana) with or without practising āyambila (to eat only one unsalted cereal). Both the privilege of the first feeding of the tapas- vī/n(ī) on day four, and of the first feeding at the time of the breaking of the fast on day five are auctioned (Kelting 2001: 46). For the story of Candanā see Shāntā 1997: 122-128. The Unknown Loïkā 239

27. To cause the “Lākhā Paóavi” to be performed, whose tradition is that?224 28. To cause gifts to be given (óhovarāvai) to celebrate the end of a fast (ūüjamaõā), whose tradition is that?225 29. To cause the pūjā to be recited,226 whose tradition is that? 30. To cause the “Aśoka-tree” (āso vçkùa) to be supported (bharavāi),227 whose tradition is that?228 31. To cause the eightfold bath (aññhottarī snātra) to be performed, whose tradition is that?229

223 This is probably another fast involving public auctions. Alternatively, the question may or may not refer to one of the following practices: (a) a ladder of gold is often given by grandsons to grandfathers; (b) ladders are often used to reach a large statue for pūjā (personal communication K. Śeñh). 224 John Cort suggested to me, this may refer to the lakùa pratipada fast (G. lākhī paóavo), which is listed in modern Gujarātī Jaina compilations of fasts. 225 G. ujamaõuü, R. ujamaõau, ujavaõau, a celebration at the end of a fast, involving donations of money to the fasting person(s). Jain and Kumār (2003: 119) translate ūüjamaõā as “udyāpana”, which signifies the concluding ceremony or the dedication of a temple on completion. The meaning of the word óhovarāvai (? S. óhauk, P. óhovaõa, to offer, to give gifts) is not entirely clear. It may generally refer to celebrations. Jeñhmal 1930: 15 has “óhurāna”. 226 Or to be sung (pāóhāī). 227 The Hindī verb bharvāī or bharvāna, to have something filled, makes less sense here than the Rājasthānī verb bharvāī, to carry, nurture, maintain, or pay for. 228 Mahāvīra renounced the world under an Aśoka-tree; which is also one of the twelve symbols of the arihantas. The tree is associated with the worship of portable Jina images, and is believed to have wish-fulfilling powers. Models of it are often installed on the roofs of temples (Jain & Fischer 1978, II: 3, 7f., 24, Plate XIIb). The aśoka vçkùa is also listed as a fast in Jinendravijaygaõi’s Tapo- ratna Mahodadhi, the breaking of which was possibly auctioned off in various ritual contexts (personal communication of John Cort). The word bharavāi could refer to an auction as well. Kanubhāī Śeñh (personal communication 7.7.2003) informs me that the expression may also point to a decorative curtain with a tree motif (though it seems unlikely). These curtains are made with gold and silver inlays to adorn the wall behind the seat of a monk. Today, they are called choóa, a small tree or shrub. They contain the name of the donor, his family members, and the name of the inspiring monk or nun. After being used as an adornment, they are later venerated in the house of the donor. Sometimes sixteen or eighteen curtains of this type are requested to be made, to be presented to women who have performed a long fast. 229 This question refers back to L 35, which questions the canonical basis of the “upper eight” (Skt. aùñottarī, Pkt. aññhottarī) ritual of installation of images, 240 PETER FLÜGEL

32. To cause fresh rice and fresh fruit to be offered in front of an image, whose tradition is that?230 33. To put sandalwood powder231 on the head of laymen and laywomen, whose tradition is that? 34. To be involved232 in the search for possessions, whose tradition is that?233 35. To cause the laity to offer a head tax (pāīü mūõóaka) before ascending a hill (pilgrimage site), whose tradition is that?234 36. To place garlands (on persons or idols), whose tradition is that?235 37. To permit laymen and laywomen to walk together (during pilgrimages) by foot, whose tradition is that?236 38. To cause the “Nāndi”237 to be erected, whose tradition is that? 39. To cause foot prints (shrines) (padīka cāüka) to be built, whose tradition is that? 40. To put powder (bhūko) into the water, whose tradition is that?238 which includes the use of fire in āratī, the rite of throwing “living” salt into the fire, etc. 230 This was also rejected by the A(ñ)calagaccha. See Balbir 2003b: 60. Since image-worship is rejected per se, this point is redundant, and may have been imported simply to add more venom to the attack. 231 S. vāsakùepa, colloquial vāskùep or vāskep, to sprinkle with scented powder. Mūrtipūjaka ascetics charge sandalwood powder with mantras and sprinkle it on the heads of their devotees to transfer their blessings-cum-spiritual energy to them. 232 bāüdhai, H. baüdhnā. 233 An alternative reading would be: “To set a limit (for individual laymen) in their search for possessions”. Jain and Kumār (2003: 119) interpret the meaning of the passage as upadhi ādi poñaliyoü meü bāüdhte haiü – to tie up/bring together property etc. in small parcels. 234 The religious legitimacy of the pilgrimage sites of Śatruñjaya, Girnār, Ābū, etc., and tīrthas other than the caturvidhasaïgha is questioned for instance in L 36, L 38, L 39, L 41, L 44. 235 The privilege of giving garlands, for instance for the successful performers of the upadhāna tapa, is also auctioned off amongst Mūrtipūjakas. 236 Samayasundara, in Balbir 2003a: 260, similarly questioned the co-wander- ing of monks and nuns, which is still practised within the Tapāgaccha. 237 The questioned issue is not clear. Maybe the word nāndi refers to the nandīśvara-paña which is venerated in the context of the nandīśvara fast (U. P. Shah 1955a: 121; Williams 1983: 232; Jain & Fischer 1978, II: 19). It could also (though unlikely) refer to the bull Nandin, who is associated with Śiva, or to an inauguration involving praise of the gods (nāndī). The Unknown Loïkā 241

41. To cause worship (vāndaõā) to be offered, whose tradition is that?239 42. To move the broom (oghā) (in front of the idols), whose tradition is that?240 43. To keep the deva dravya, whose tradition is that?241 44. To wear a long covering garment (pacheçī) down to the feet, whose tradition is that?242 45. To accept the sūrimantra, whose tradition is that?243

238 G. bhūko or bhūkā, powder, is related to R. bhūkau (Lālas 1986-87: 296). The question addresses a common form of water sterilisation amongst the Jainas through “killing” sacitta water by adding a different living substance such as lime powder (cūnā). Hastīmal 1995: 693 transcribes the original bhūko as bhūükā. Jain and Kumār (2003: 119) interpret bhūükā as G. thūüka or H. thūka, saliva, spittle. The issue of cūrõa, or powder, is also addressed in Sama- yasundara’s Sāmācārī Śataka 37 etc. (Balbir 2003a: 261). 239 The sentence apparently means: “to cause veneration to be given (to an ascetic or image)”, since R. vāndaõau (bāndaõau) is equivalent to S. vandana, to worship. Jain and Kumār (2003: 119) translate vāndaõā dirāvai as bāüdhanā dilānā – to cause someone to give an oath (to bind him/herself). They derive vāndaõā from S. bandhana, to bind, R. bāüdhaõau. Cf. Lālas 1986-87: 194f. 240 Jain and Kumār (2003: 119) render the words oghā phervai chai as āśīrvād svarūp kisī par oghā phernā. Loïkā apparently did not use an oghā at all (Mālvaõiyā 1964: 369). 241 The donations given “to the gods” should only be used for the maintenance of the temples, etc. Jeñhmal 1930: 15 has as question No. 44: gāüñh meü paisā rakhte ho. – To keep money in the pocket. 242 To wear a long pacchevaçī (P. pacchāga) is considered wasteful. It seems, Loïkā himself used one almsbowl (pātra), one loincloth (colapaññāka) and one short pacchevaçī (cādar) (L D. Institute Ms. No. 2328, in Mālvaõiyā 1964: 369). He rejected the oghā, muhapattī, kambala, and daõóa. See Mālvaõiyā 1964: 369; he cites Ghelāçùi, a contemporary of Loïkā, who reportedly (L.D. Institute Ms. No. 7588, question 86) asked him in which sūtra it is written to wear a cola- pañña, or loincloth: āp jaisā colpaññak pahante haiü, vaisā kis sūtra meü likhā hai?. From this, it can be deduced that the ascetics at the time did not wear a colapañña; though colapaññas are mentioned in the canon (Viy 8.6.2 (374), etc.). Jñānsundar (1936: 173f.) writes that in the 20th century (?) Loïkāgaccha ascetics wore colapaññakas and caddars (cādar), but in a slightly different form than the Sthānakavāsīs. In contrast to the Sthānakavāsīs, they did not wear a muha- pattī permanently, but carried an oghā, kambal, and daõóa, etc. I have never seen any evidence of a Loïkāgaccha yati carrying a daõóa though of oghā and kambal. 243 For the tantric cult of the sūrimantra in the Mūrtipūjaka tradition see Dundas 1998: 36-46. He points out that it is not used by the Sthānakavāsīs because they claim “during the fifth century C.E. there occurred a major inter- 242 PETER FLÜGEL

46. To recite the sūrimantra every day, whose tradition is that?244 47. To shine in starched245 (white clothes), whose bright tradition is that? 48. To cause the “Bairakanhai” fast to be performed during paryuùaõa, whose tradition is that?246 49. To cause a waterpot (ghaóūlā) to be made, whose tradition is that?247 50. To cause the āyambila olī fast to be performed together with the siddhacakra (pūjā), whose tradition is that?248 51. To hold a ceremony of mourning (ūñhamaõuü)249 after the death of an ascetic, whose tradition is that? 52. To cause the swinging of the images (of the fourteen dreams of Mahāvīra’s mother) to be performed, whose tradition is that?250

ruption of the teacher lineage through which the formula was transmitted” (Dundas 1998: 36). 244 The mantra was recited to acquire mystical powers, and in order to strengthen the commitment to the particular lineage. 245 Jain and Kumār (2003: 119) translate the expression kalapaçā with the Hindī word kalaf, starch. 246 Jain and Kumār (2003: 120) identify this fast as the vajra-kçùõa (vaira- kannai), or black thunderbolt-fast. No further information is given. 247 G. ghaóūlo, small pitcher, water pot. Pots and bowls should be produced by the ascetics themselves. K. Śeñh informs me that the question may point to welcoming celebrations for ascetics (nāgara praveśa) performed by women with auspicious water pots on their heads, for which see the photo on the dustjacket of Cort 2001. The Hindī rendition of Jain & Kumār 2003: 120 reads: jhaóūle karvānā (bāl utarvānā), i.e. to cause the hair to be shaved (R. jhaóūlau signifies the hair of a newly born child). Jaina ascetics should pluck their hair or have it plucked by another ascetic. 248 For a description of this ritual, which comprises the use of flowers and fruit and the veneration of images and gods, see Jain & Fischer 1978, II: 2-4; Cort 2001: 162f. Jain and Kumār (2003: 120) have: siddhacakra ke āyambīl kī bolī karvānā, to cause the auction of the siddhacakra āyambila fast to be done, which must have been one of the main objections implied by the question. 249 In Rājasthānī, uñhāvaõau denotes collective mourning. In the case of ascetics, this is the guõānuvāda sabhā, the auspicious praise of the deceased ascetic. A special carpet is used in this context. 250 This ritual is performed by the Mūrtipūjaka Jaina laity on the fifth day of paryuùaõa, which is called Mahāvīra Jayanti, though the actual birthday of Mahāvīra falls on an earlier date in the year. For details of this ritual, which is performed for well-being and involves extensive bidding for ritual acts, see Cort 2001: 154-7, who also cites earlier literature. The Unknown Loïkā 243

53. To create a decorated table (ñhavaõī) in front of the feet (of an ascetic or an image),251 whose tradition is that? 54. To perform the pratikramaõa on the fourth day (of the second lunar fortnight) of paryuùaõa, whose tradition is that?252

Notably, the questions are addressed to a Jaina mendicant, not to the laity, and imply a mendicant perspective. The basic question, whether any of the fifty-four listed beliefs and practices corresponds to the teachings of the root scriptures seems, at first sight, to reflect an attitude of a-temporal lay-inspired scriptural literalism which deliberately ignores the commentary traditions of the teachers of the mendicant lineages.253 However, a closer view reveals that Loïkā may not have rejected commentaries per se, especially not those (such as the later vernacular ñabos) which merely explain the meaning of the sūtras themselves, but only commentaries or parts of commentaries whose contents do not correspond at all to the teachings of the root scriptures. Mālvaõiyā 1964: 377f. argued that this interpretation is supported by the fact that the two Mss. which have been attributed to Loïkā make use of all available Jaina scriptures and commentaries. Further evidence for a positive attitude toward the commentaries in the aniconic Jaina tradition can be found in the published Sthānakavāsī and Terāpanth Āgama editions which make explicit use of all commentaries in order to establish the literal meaning of the sūtras themselves, though some modern monks, such as Upādhyāya Amarmuni, argue that because of their condensed nature the sūtras are intrinsically polyvalent and can therefore only be interpreted symbolically.254 In contrast to

251 Jain and Kumār (2003: 120) use the word gavalī (uübaõī) for ñhavaõī. 252 This refers to the practices of the Tapāgaccha and the Kharataragaccha to perform the final saüvatsarī pratikramaõa not, like most Jaina traditions, on bhādrapad śukla 5 but already on bhādrapad śukla 4, apparently following the advice of Kālakācārya (cf. Jacobi 1880). In contrast to Loïkā, Kaóuā seems to have accepted “the general practice established by Kālakācārya” (in Dundas 1999: 22), but not the A(ñ)calagaccha (Balbir 2003b: 59). 253 Dundas 1996: 74, 89f.

244 PETER FLÜGEL

Mālvaõīya’s view that the canon of thirty-two was codified after the emergence of the Sthānakavāsī orders, there is evidence that Loïkā himself advocated for a restricted canon of thirty-two scriptures in Bhānucandra’s Dayādharma Caupāī v. 19 of 1521/2, though, if Mālvaõīya’s source Dharmasāgara’s Pravacanaparīkùā of 1572/3 can be believed, it had not been canonised one hundred years later. According to Kāpaóiā (1941/2000: 38, 53), even the current Mūrtipūjaka classification of forty-five scriptures emerged sometime after the 14th century. The construction of alternative Āgama classifications in the late medieval period thus appears to be generally a product of sectarian politics, predicated on the emergence of a new style of text-oriented critique in “reformed” gacchas and gaõas. The fifty-four questions are de facto commentaries themselves, whose contents have in parts been canonised in the aniconic tradition. Their rhetoric may be literalist and fundamentalist, but they function as means of innovation and of canonisation, since they censure certain customary practices which back them up, while favouring others which are not explicitly mentioned. The fluidity of the usage of textual allusions is illustrated by Loïkā’s objection to child initiation (K2) which contradicts the canonical Vavahāra 10.16f.,255 and by the fact that the equally rejected custom of changing names at the point of initiation (K3) is nowadays practiced by several Sthānakavāsī traditions,256 and by the Terāpanthīs. Since much of the meaning of the fifty-four questions is contextual and implicit, their interpretation must remain tentative. However, the collection and analysis of similar lists from the same period, as studied by Dundas (1999) and Balbir (2003a; 2003b), may in future

254 See Flügel 2003a: 162, n. 49; 195, n. 140; 196, n. 145. Dundas (1996: 80, 83, 86) has discussed similar remarks of Abhayadeva, Prabhācandra and Dharmasāgara. 255 Schubring 1935/2000: 250; Balbir 2001: 154. Amongst the Śvetāmbara sects, only the Śramaõasaïgha rejects child initiation. 256 Amongst the Sādhumārgīs only women change their names. The empirical situation is complex. The Unknown Loïkā 245 produce a clearer view of the sectarian faultlines in the 15th and 16th centuries.

LOðKĀ’S TEACHINGS ACCORDING TO MODERN STHĀNAKAVĀSĪ SOURCES257 With the publications of Mālvaõiyā and Hastīmal, in particular, fruitful comparisons between the early beliefs and customs of different aniconic traditions are rendered possible for the first time. Of special interest is the reconstruction of the early development of the Loïkāgaccha for which still hardly any evidence exists. For the present investigation of the effective history of Loïkā the comparison between “Loïkā’s” writings and versions of his teachings transmitted within the Sthānakavāsī tradition is important, as are preliminary observations on the differences between the customary law (maryādā) of the early Sthānakavāsī traditions and “Loïkā’s” proclamations. To my knowledge, in addition to the paraphrases in Jeñhmal (1930), only two texts are currently available on Loïkā’s rules in the Sthānakavāsī secondary literature. One was published by Sādhvī Candanākumārī (1964: 102)258 and the other by Gulāba- canda Nānacanda Señh (1970: 703f.).259 This is somewhat surprising, given the importance of Loïkā as the founder of the aniconic Jaina traditions. However, a recent survey by the present writer has shown that most of the ancient sources of the comparatively sparse literary output of the aniconic traditions before the 20th century has either been lost or not been catalogued or used. Even the writings of the founders of the Sthānakavāsī traditions have not been pre-

257 Original source not cited in Candanākumārī 1964: 102; Prakāścandra 1998: 31. 258 It is possible that Candanākumārī extracted the rules from the book by Suśīlkumār (1959), which was one the main sources for her work. I cannot dis- confirm this, since several pages of the chapter on Loïkā are missing in my own xerox-copy of Suśīlkumār’s text. 259 The texts were also published in Flügel 2000: 52; 2003a: 233. 246 PETER FLÜGEL served in their original form. It is therefore not surprising that no literary traces of the debates between the followers of the Loïkā traditions and the Sthānakavāsī (and Terāpanth) traditions have been discovered to date.260 Candanākumārī (1964: 102) writes that several manuscripts of the regulations (niyama) which Loïkā himself composed for the Loïkāgaccha mendicants (sādhu-sansthā) can be readily found in old Jaina libraries. She therefore decided to publish only a selection of eleven particularly “useful” rules in summary form in Hindī under the title Loïkāgaccha kī Sāmācārī (LS).261 Without acknowledgement of the source, her list was re- published in Gujarātī by Muni Prakāścandra (1998: 31) of the Līmbóī Moñī Pakùa.

The code of conduct of the Loïkāgaccha262

1. Only the Sanskrit commentaries (ñīkā) which agree with the scriptures are acceptable as authoritative. 2. One should live a steadfast disciplined life in agreement with the scriptures. 3. From the point of view of religion “image-worship” is not in agreement with the scriptures. 4. Genuine, pure vegetarian food can be accepted from every family [caste]. 5. It is not necessary for anyone to set up the symbols of the monastic order (sthāpanācārya) [for worship].263 6. During the vows of upavāsa,264 etc., absolutely all types of lifeless (prā- suka) water can be accepted.

260 Flügel 2000; 2003a; forthcoming (c). 261 prācīn śāstra-bhaõóāroü meü in niyamoü ke anek patra prāpta hote haiü. un sabhī niyamoü kā likhnā yahāü āvaśyak nahīü hai. un meü se kuch upayogī niyam jānkārī ke lie yahāü diye jā rahe haiü (Candanākumārī 1964: 102). 262 Translated by the author. 263 The A(ñ)calagaccha allowed its use only for mendicants, not for the laity as most Mūrtipūjaka traditions. See Balbir 2003b: 59f. 264 The word upavāsa signifies either fasting in general, or a specific thirty- six-hour fast (Pkt. cauttha bhatta, Skt. caturtha-bhakta) without any food, but with or without drink. I have preferred the more specific meaning in all trans- lations, since the upavāsa performed in the context of poùadha is addressed, though often fasting in general may have been the intended meaning in a particular case. The Unknown Loïkā 247

7. The one-day fast (upavāsa) can even be performed on days other than the lunar holy days (parva-tithi).265 8. There is no need for monks to practise the skills of mantra-tantra and yantra, etc. 9. Laymen can beg, but cannot receive religious gifts (dāna). 10. To give gifts (dāna) to the poor due to the feeling of compassion is not a sin (pāpa), but rather the cause of merit (puõya). 11. There is no need to keep a staff (daõóa).266

If this list was indeed composed on the basis of primary literature, then the information must have been selected from all the texts that have been attributed to Loïkā to date. The critique of the validity of the Jaina commentary literature in point one, for instance, is mainly discussed in the Loïkā nī Huõóī 34 Bol, and the locus classicus of Loïkā’s critique of image worship is the text Luïkā nī Añhāvan Bol. Candanākumārī’s method of extraction and her utili- tarian criterion of “contemporary relevance” offers a glimpse into the rational of the strategies of selection, exegesis and transmission of chosen elements of the doctrinal tradition and of the customary law within the aniconic Jaina mendicant traditions. A second Sthānakavāsī source for the rules and regulations of Loïkā was published by Gulābcand Nāncand Señh (1970: 703f.), a poet who was hired to write down the results of the extensive historical research of Muni Cauthmal (died 1951) on the life of Ācārya Jaymal, which was completed by the munis Cāndmal (1908-1968), Jītmal and Lālcand, who in 1964 split from the Śramaõasaïgha in protest against the controversial institutional

265 This rule is identical with one of the stipulations of Kaóuā (KS 7); though Jñānsundar 1936: 327, n. 5 expressed the opposite view. The point was rejected by the A(ñ)calagaccha and the Kharataragaccha (Samayasundara), but accepted by the Tapāgaccha (Balbir 2003b: 59). Dundas 1999: 22 understands the meaning of rule KS 7 slightly differently – that “the poùadha fast can be celebrated when it does not fall on an observance day (parvan)”. 266 The prototype must be LH 22, which criticises the Niśītha Cūrõi’s permis- sion for using an acitta staff for purposes of self-defence, which contradicts the Niśītha 5 itself. 248 PETER FLÜGEL reforms of Ācārya Ānandçùi, and founded the independent Dharma- dāsa Jayamala Sampradāya.267 The bulky text, entitled Jaydhvaj, was published with the aim of strengthening the sectarian identity of the newly established tradition. The publication was supported by the influential Ācārya Hastīmal, who in 1968 also separated himself from the Śramaõasaïgha to re-establish the Ratnavaüśa as an independent order. Hastīmal (1968) had already published a collection of paññāvalīs of the Loïkāgaccha tradition and of the Sthānakavāsīs, and systematically researched the history of the aniconic Jaina tradition during the following two decades.268 The following twenty points (LN) which Señh attributes to Loïkā have been summarised by him in Hindī without any reference to the original source. The introductory sentence only mentions that Loïkā prepared this sāmācārī in Saüvat 1531 (1474/5 CE) in order to prevent the rise of śithilācāra, or laxity, amongst the sādhus of Bhāõā’s newly created Loïkāgaccha:269

1. Even without having completed the upadhāna fast one can study the scripture.270 2. From the point of view of religion, worshipping the Jina image is not in the forty-five scriptures.

267 Varddhamāna Sthānakavāsī Jaina Śrāvaka Saïgha Jaypur 1964; Flügel 2003a: 164-168; forthcoming (a). 268 See Hastīmal 1968; 1971; 1987/1995, and his collection of Mss. in the Lāl Bhavan Sthānak in Jaypur. 269 Translation by the author. 270 The upadhāna tapa is a special, extended (usually thirty-five or forty- seven day long) collective poùadha, a collective fast-cum-study exercise which, according to Cort 2001: 137, has been first described in the 7th-century Mahā- nisīha 3.3.15-3.36.1. At the end of the programme, which demands image- worship three times a day, “each lay faster takes a garland of flowers used in temple worship and puts it over the head of the mendicant leader”. Dundas 1999: 22 cites the stipulation of Loïkā’s younger contemporary, Kaóuā, that “One should not perform garlanding (mālāropaõa) at the end of Upadhāna Tapas”, which he interprets as the ceremony of the “lay votary being garlanded by the presiding monk” (Dundas 1999: 30, n. 21). The objection expressed in the text that is attributed to Loïkā addresses another aspect of upadhāna, i.e. that one is not allowed to study without a prior fast. The Unknown Loïkā 249

3. Apart from the root aphorism (sūtra), the scripture (āgama) and the root teaching (śāstra), joined together with the Sanskrit commentaries (ñīkā), other scripture and Sanskrit commentary is not to be believed in any respect. 4. It is forbidden to practice magical skills (vidyā). 5. The fast day (poùadha) [and the] ritual of repentance (pratikramaõa) is performed according to individual custom. 6. Apart from cāturmāsa, one can also use a seat (pāña) [during the rest of the year].271 7. One should not keep a staff. 8. One can possess books.272 9. Paying attention to genuineness and purity, one can collect alms from every family. 10. A layperson (śrāvaka) can also perform the almsround (gocarī). 11. A layperson (śrāvaka) cannot accept a religious gift (dāna). 12. During fasting (upavāsa pratyākhyāna) one can take lifeless whey (āch) of buttermilk.273 13. Poùadha can even be performed without practising a one-day fast.274

271 The meaning of this statement is not entirely clear, though there is a certain resonance with point 6 in Dharmadāsa’s critique of Lava (in Señh 1970: 368, n.) on the use of seats, which are unnecessary luxuries, even outside of cāturmāsa. The printed text has the word pāñakā, which may be a corruption of S. pāñaka, part of a village, which would make even less sense. 272 The issue of the possession of books is touched upon in a different context in K 16 on the distribution of books during paryuùaõa. It was also a point of contention between the “bookish” Dharmasiïha and Lava, who rejected the possession of books. See Pracīn Paññāvālī in Hastīmal 1968: 186-192. 273 Cf. Dharmadāsa’s critique of Dharmasiïha, who apparently upheld Loïkā’s rule, in Señh 1970: 369, n.: upavās meü chāch kī āch pīnī nahīü. – One should not drink the whey of buttermilk during a fast. The Sthānakavāsī traditions of Raghunāth (Dharmadāsa Sampradāya), Amarsiïha, Dīpcand, Malūkcand (Jīva- rāja Sampradāya), Khetsī and Khemsī (Hara Sampradāya) also touched on this issue in a common decree of 1753 whose wording is, however, not entirely intel- ligible: 2. tapasyā meü telā uparānt dhovaõ tathā āch aur chāch kī āch pīnī nahīü. pī lī jāye to ādhe tap kā prāyaścit (Señh 1970: 919f.; cf. Flügel 2003a: 237f.). The Terāpanth mendicants, which emerged from the Dharmadāsa traditions as well, however, use āch during fasts: “When they undertake long fasts they take, if available, the greenish water floating on boiled whey, after the thicker portion of the boiled whey has settled down, otherwise they take boiled water only” (Chopra 1945: 27, n.). 274 Even in the Śrāvakācāras of the image worshippers, poùadha is not identical with poùadhopavāsa. See Williams 1983: 142f. on the four spheres of appli- 250 PETER FLÜGEL

14. A one-day fast (upavāsa) can even be performed on days other than the lunar holy days (tithi parva). 15. One can take the vow of a one-day fast together (in a group). 16. One should not enumerate the auspicious days (kalyāõaka) amongst the lunar days (tithi).275 17. The day on which one takes a milk product, on that day one should not use hard (dvidala grains).276 18. It is not necessary to set up a sthāpanācārya. 19. Within forty-eight minutes (do ghaçī) life is generated in waste water (dhovana).277 20. From a religious understanding, to give a gift (dāna) to an unworthy one (apātra) must be violence (to give to a poor person out of compassion is not the cause of the fault of one-sidedness (ekānta pāpa)).278

cation of the poùadha vow. The issue is also addressed in Samayasundara’s Sāmācārī Śataka 25, 29 which accepts this practice (Balbir 2003a: 260), as did the Tapāgaccha, but not the A(ñ)calagaccha (Balbir 2003b: 60). 275 Cf. L 22. For another debate concerning the kalyāõakas, in Samaya- sundara, see Balbir 2003a: 263ff. 276 Soft food made of milk, such as yoghurt, and hard food made of grains that are (under their skin) split into two parts (S. dvidala) should not be eaten on the same day. The rule is identical with one of the stipulations of Kaóuā (KS 8 citing the Bçhatkalpabhāùya); though Jñānsundar (1936: 327, n. 6) expressed the view that Loïkā permitted the use of dvidala. It is also mentioned in the lists of forbidden food (abhakùya) in the medieval Śrāvakācāra texts under the name ghola-vañāka, buttermilk in tiny lumps (Williams 1983: 110f.). Here, dvidala are described as “pulses which when ground yield no oil”. They should not be con- sumed because they contain many micro-organisms; in particular not in combination with milk products “for in this latter instance it is the combination of sour food and milk-product which curdles the milk product and thus results in the generation of innumerable organisms” (Cort 1989: 271). The issue is also addressed in Samayasundara’s Sāmācārī Śataka 7 (Balbir 2003a: 261). 277 It is believed that new micro-organisms develop in lifeless water after forty-eight minutes. Dhovana (P. dhovaõa) water has been used by Jaina ascetics from the outset (see AS 2.1.7.7-9, DVS 5.1.75-79, 5.1.47-55), although some Jaina traditions insist nowadays that only boiled water is acceptable (see Sūy 1.2.2.18, 1.2.2.20, DVS 5.2.22). Often dhovana water is filtered and thus kept much longer than forty-eight minutes. 278 This rule is oriented towards a layperson. It resonates with the debate on the nature of the pure gift (dāna) between the Sthānakavāsīs Raghunāth and Jay- mal on the one hand and the founder of the Terāpanth, Bhīkhan (Bhikùu), on the other. The Terāpanthīs argued that for the seeker of salvation, the imperative to get rid of all karma is authoritative. Giving for reasons of compassion is counter- The Unknown Loïkā 251

The list overlaps to a great extent with Candanākumārī’s, and may indeed have served as the immediate source for Candanākumārī’s selection of useful points. In many cases the wording is almost identical. Another indication is that Señh’s list is much more detailed, and must have been available to Candanākumārī, because it was apparently composed by Muni Cauthmal, who died in 1951, although it was published much later.279 It is an intriguing but currently unanswerable question whether all of these rules go back to Loïkā, or Bhāõā, or whether at least some of these rules have been created by subsequent Loïkāgaccha or Sthānakavāsī writers. Rule 2 states wrongly that worshipping images is not mentioned in the “forty-five” scriptures.

LOðKĀ AND KAôUĀ As indicated in the footnotes, most, but not all, points of the two largely overlapping lists concur with topics of “Loïkā’s” texts L, LH and K, and can be said to be historically akin to Loïkā’s teachings. However, certain points, particularly on gift giving and jīva- dayā (see infra), seem to be later additions,280 while many of the more intricate points in Loïkā’s texts have been left out altogether. productive, and thus a form of violence against the self, because it contributes to the accumulation of more karma, i.e. puõya. The Sthānakavāsīs argued that compassionate giving, even to a non-ascetic or to a bad ascetic, is nevertheless a religious act, since both the relative point of view (vyavahāra naya) of conventional morality and the absolute point of view (niścaya naya) of the karma theory are part of religion. See Flügel 1995-95: 123f.; 2000: 96, n. 107. The statement in the “Loïkā’s” sāmācārī supports both Bhikùu’s view, which is based exclusively on the niścaya naya, and Raghunāth’s belief that the more fundamental Jaina principle of non-onesidedness (anekāntavāda) supports the ethics of compassionate help, because it is predicated on the irreducible complementarity of the absolute and the conventional point of view. 279 I asked Candanākumārī personally which sources she used for this list, but she said she could not remember anymore. 280 LN 6 (using a seat) and LN 8 (possession of books) touch on issues which were controversial between Dharmasiïha, Lava and Dharmadāsa. See Flügel 2000; forthcoming (b). 252 PETER FLÜGEL

Although the wording sometimes differs, the contents of Candanā- kumārī’s list (LS) are entirely covered by Señh’s list,281 which confirms its derivative nature. The two lists have only few issues in common with the reported maryādās of three of the founders of the Sthānakavāsī tradition, Dharmasiïha, Lava, and Dharmadāsa.282 But many points mirror Kaóuā’s rules, which were, as Jñānsundar (1936: 327, n. 4, etc.) suspected, probably formulated in contradis- tinction to Loïkā’s rules or vice versa. Though they differ in certain details, many of the transmitted rules of Loïkā and Kaóuā address similar issues. The main common topics are “ascetic”283 rituals for the laity, such as the pratikramaõa, sāmāyika, upadhāna, and poùadha, which is often discussed in connection with the upa- vāsa fast. However, because both authors discuss many areas of monastic conduct as well, which do not overlap, it cannot be inferred from this that the followers of either Loïkā and/or Kaóuā were advanced householders, or yatis, and not mendicants. If the two Sthānakavāsī lists are considered together (“Loïkā’s” writings), the following picture emerges with regard to the lay rituals: Both Loïkā and Kaóuā advocated the performance of the prati- kramaõa ritual, according to individual (LN 5) and group custom, not scripture (there are no pratikramaõa texts in the Āgamas). However, Loïkā (K 58) determined that, in accordance with the scriptures, the saüvatsarī pratikramaõa should be performed on the 5th bhadrapāda, not on the 4th bhadrapāda as Kaóuā (following the Tapāgaccha custom) prescribed (KS 4). Contrary to the scriptures, Kaóuā also fixed the pākùika pratikramaõa for the 14th of every lunar fortnight, not for the 15th (KS 3), and additionally adopted the tristuti formula (KS 11), which has been introduced by the Āgamikagaccha into the pratikramaõa.284

281 LS 8 (mantra-tantra) and LN 4 (vidyā) cover similar ground, as does future telling and astrology which “Loïkā” criticised for instance in K 9, K 10. 282 Señh 1970: 368, n. & 369, n. See Flügel, forthcoming (b). 283 “Ascetic” rather than “symbolic” or reflective rituals such as pūjā. 284 See Dundas 1999: 30, n. 23. The Unknown Loïkā 253

Loïkā (K 8) and Kaóuā (KS 6) also agreed that the sāmāyika should be performed repeatedly. But only Kaóuā asserted that the laity should use a muhapattī during the ritual (KS 5), and should recite the īryāpathika ā locanā after the first sāmāyika (KS 15). The poùadha is the topic of many points. It is usually discussed together with the topic of the one-day-fast (upavāsa).285 Both Loïkā (LS 7) and Kaóuā (KS 7) determined that poùadha can be performed repeatedly according to individual preference (LN 5), even outside the parvan days, on which it is obligatory.286 How- ever, Kaóuā (KS 13) prohibited the consumption of all food or water during the fast (upavāsa), whereas Loïkā permitted the use of all types of lifeless water, and of the whey (āch) of buttermilk, the use of which was/is prohibited in many Sthānakavāsī traditions.287 Kaóuā stressed particularly that women can also perform poùadha (KS 11). Loïkā emphasised that one upavāsa can be performed together in a group (LN 15). The statements KS 11 and LN 15 may refer to the collective upadhāna fast as well. The upadhāna is an extended poùadha (cum study) exercise, that was propagated by Loïkā and Kaóuā, who both however rejected the ceremonial garlanding of the tapasvīns with flowers at the end of the fast (K 36, KS 9), as performed by the Mūrtipūjakas. At the time, the upadhāna must have been performed either with or without studying, otherwise Loïkā would not have highlighted that one can study the scripture “even without having completed the upadhāna fast” (LN 1); although his rule

285 In the Śrāvakācāra literature of the image-worshipping traditions, which Williams (1983: 142) studied, poùadha usually means “the fast on the parvan day”. The term poùadhopavāsa therefore appears to be “etymologically tautolo- gical”, though other interpretations of poùadha can be found as well, such as “that which strengthens or fattens the religious life” (YŚ 3.85) or “the supreme mendicant” (Cāritrasundar). 286 Jñānsundar 1936: 327, n. 5 deliberately misunderstands the respective rules. 287 See footnote 273. 254 PETER FLÜGEL may also reflect customary prohibitions for studying certain texts without prior fasting. The principal difference between Kaóuā and Loïkā, according to the lists published by Señh and Candanākumārī, was that Kaóuā, who assumed an intermediary position between Loïkā and the Mūrtipūjakas (especially the dominant Tapāgaccha), also propagated image-worship (KS 1, KS 20),288 though rejecting the installation (pratiùñhā) of images by monks rather than laity (KS 2). Kaóuā also advocated the veneration of the sthāpanācārya (KS 10), which Loïkā rejected as a “worship of dead objects” (LS 5, LN 18). These differences can be explained in terms of fundamentally different attitudes to the scriptures, because Kaóuā accepted the authority of the post-canonical calendar,289 and maybe (though there is no evidence) defined the auspicious days (kalyāõaka) as moon days (tithi) which Loïkā explicitly criticised (since this would artifi- cially reduce the number of fast days) (LN 16), and commentaries such as the Āvaśyaka Cūrõī (KS 13, KS 15) or the Bçhatkalpa- bhāùya (KS 8) which Loïkā had rejected (L 57, LS 1),290 though both referred to the “seniors” of the canon as the main source for monastic conduct (KS 18).291

CONCLUSION: REMARKS ON COMPASSIONATE GIVING One of the most controversial issues in the aniconic Jaina tradition is the question of the origins of the so-called dāna-dayā theory, the doctrine of the religious value of the protection of life through charity and active compassionate help, not only to Jainas but to all living beings. Under Ācārya Bhikùu, the Terāpanth tradition split from the Sthānakavāsī Dharmadāsa Raghunātha Sampradāya because it believed that such actions contributed only to the accumu-

288 Image-worship is also a traditional ingredient of the upadhāna. 289 See Jñānsundar 1936: 328, n. 2; Dundas 1999: 31, n. 31. 290 Dundas 1999: 31, n. 31. 291 Dundas 1999: 31, n. 30. The Unknown Loïkā 255 lation of puõya, but nothing to the reduction of the overall karmic load. From the absolute point of view (niścaya naya), therefore, compassionate help is an impediment to ultimate salvation, and in this sense a sin (pāpa). The Terāpanthīs tend to claim that Loïkā already rejected the dāna-dayā theories of the Mūrtipūjakas and Sthānakavāsīs, and that they are presently the only aniconic tradition which still pursues Loïkā’s neo-orthodox point of view. It seems that the text Loïkejī kī Huõóī was published deliberately by the Terāpanth tradition in the mid-1930s, when the sectarian disputes within the Jaina community peaked, to prove this point. By contrast, many contemporary Sthānakavāsīs believe that Loïkā was the originator of their own interpretation of the dāna-dayā theory, which promotes merit-making through dāna for financing gośālās rather than temples, although Jñānsundar (1936: 210, n. 1) and other critics of the aniconic tradition argued, with reference to early Mūrtipūjaka polemics against Loïkā, that it must have been one of the early leaders of the Loïkāgaccha who introduced this doctrine, since Loïkā rejected the religious merit of gift giving altogether (for purposes other than sustaining the subsistence of worthy mendicants), though L commends the sponsorship of upā- śrayas.292 At the same time, most modern commentators underline that Loïkā himself was not an initiated monk, and that even the early Loïkāgaccha ascetics may have been yatis, half-ascetics in the modern sense, rather than sādhus and sādhvīs, and thus must have stood with one foot in the world.293 This remains an open question, although Loïkā’s own writings suggest that Loïkā himself was vigorously opposed to a semi-ascetic lifestyle (L8 and LH whose structure is informed by the mahāvratas). The example of contemporary Digambara bhaññārakas294 indicates that even yatis

292 See L 23 and DC 18 for the distinction between worthy (yogya) and unworthy mendicants. 293 See for instance V. M. Śāh 1909: 54, 65; Jñānsundar 1936: 105; Suśīl- kumār 1959: 426; Mālvaõiyā 1964: 368. 294 Joharāpurkar in Shāntā 1985: 186, n. 99; Flügel 2006: 382, n. 190. 256 PETER FLÜGEL tend to be pañca-mahāvratis, they simply do not observe the rules strictly, or interpret them slightly differently, not unlike the aõu- vratas for the laity. Of particular interest in this context are the three statements concerning compassionate gift giving (dāna-dayā) in the two Sthā- nakavāsī summaries of “Loïkā’s” teachings, LS and LN. For these statements, no equivalent assertions can be found in “Loïkā’s” texts L, LH, and K, which use dayā dharma and jīva dayā merely as synonyms of ahiüsā dharma.295 The rules LS 4 = LN 9 describe in a straightforward way that a renouncer can collect food from all families, without regard to caste and class, if the food and the manner of giving correspond to the canonical rules.296 This contrasts both with the rule No. 75 of 101 Bol of the Kaóuāgaccha which prohibits the renouncers to visit houses of followers of the Loïkāgaccha,297 and with the Mūrtipūjaka preference for vaõik (vāõiyā) households as expressed in rule No. 2 of the Paĩtīs Bol (PB) of 1526/7 of the Mūrtipūjaka reformer Ācārya Ānandvīmal- sūri (1490-1539).298 The texts ascribed to Loïkā himself remain silent on this point. Rules LS 9 = LN 10+LN 11 are more puzzling. They state that “a layperson” can perform gocarī in the manner of an ascetic, but cannot receive dāna in the manner of an ascetic. How can this be understood? The use of the term gocarī rules out non-religious contexts of begging which are addressed in LS 10. The most likely explanation points to the definition of the intermediary stages between householder and mendicant, since the religious status of Loïkā and the Loïkāgaccha ascetics was disputed from the beginning in the literature. In the eleventh pratimā, or stage of spiritual

295 See for instance L 17, which lists several passages from the canon where the word dayā occurs. 296 The same conviction is expressed by the contemporary Loïkāgaccha laity, though no universally recognised yatis exist anymore. 297 In Jñānsundar 1936: 333. 298 keval vaõik jāti ke viraktoü ko hī śramaõ-śramaõī dharma meü dīkùā karnā, anya jāti ke logoü ko nahīü (PB 2, in Hastīmal 1995: 582). The Unknown Loïkā 257 progress for the laity, a lay person should renounce all business of the world, has the head shaven, is clad in a mendicant’s garment, carries a broom (rajoharaõa), and a begging bowl (pātra), and performs the begging round, though technically not in the same manner as a monk (Williams 1983: 178-180). This means that although a layperson who took the vow of the eleventh pratimā performs the almsround in exactly the same way as a mendicant, technically s/he does not qualify for being a worthy receiver (supātra) for a religious gift (dāna) which generates a destruction of karma (and the accumulation of puõya karma) on the part of the giver. The rules concerning giving must have been created or selected from an unmentioned source by the Sthānakavāsīs to clearly demar- cate the status of a properly initiated mendicant from an advanced householder or (Loïkāgaccha) yati.299 A material gift can, after all, also become a means of material enrichment. This explanation corresponds well to LN 20, which is addressed not to the receiver but to the giver. The first part states: “From a religious understanding, to give a gift (dāna) to an unworthy one (apātra) must be violence”. This statement coincides with the conventional view presented in the Āgamas and in the Śrāvakācāra literature.300 However, rather than representing the summary of a statement of “Loïkā”, the second part of the assertion (in brackets) seems to introduce a new argument, which lends support to the dominant Sthānakavāsī position in the debate with the Terāpanthīs on the nature of the pure gift (śuddha dāna), seen from the transcendent (niścaya) and conventional (vyavahāra) perspectives: “to give to a

299 As in the case of Digambara bhaññārakas, only few yatis existed in the Loïkāgaccha traditions between the 17th and 21th centuries, often only single individuals without disciples who were in charge of the property and religious ceremonies of a particular gaccha. 300 See Williams 1983: 152 for the difference between a kupātra, a poor person of a more or less righteous lifestyle but wrong belief, and an apātra, a person devoid of all good qualities. Both are normally not considered worthy recipients of religious gifts in the Śrāvakācāra literature, nor are adherents of non-Jain traditions. See Viy 8.6. 258 PETER FLÜGEL poor person out of compassion is not the cause of the fault of one- sidedness” (ekānta pāpa).301 In contrast to the first part of LN 20, the equivalent formulation LS 10 in the list of Candanākumārī is not entirely consistent with the previous rules on giving, by eliminating the brackets and by using the unqualified term dāna302 for the compassionate giving to the “poor” (garīb), while avoiding the doctrinal term kupātra: “To give gifts (dāna) to the poor due to the feeling of compassion is not a sin (pāpa), but rather the cause of merit (puõya)”. This interpretation contrasts both with the Terā- panth distinction between lokottara dāna and laukika dāna and with the conventional Sthānakavāsī interpretation of religious charity, which also stresses the suboptimal, if sometimes acceptable, character of giving to a kupātra or apātra. Given the subsequent life-course of the author Candanākumārī, the founder of the reformist Vīrāyatan group of nuns who engage in social work in the manner of Christian nuns,303 it must be assumed that the word dāna was used intentionally in an unqualified form. It should be interesting to trace the origins of this belief in anukampādāna, a concept which is mentioned already in the canonical texts òhāõa 10.475 and Viyāhapannatti 304b but re-projected and attributed to Loïkā within the Sthānakavāsī traditions which now regard it as their own distinctive teaching. The contemporary Loïkāgaccha tradition itself has lost all written sources and retains no cultural memory anymore on the doctrinal views of Loïkā or the earlier Loïkā- gaccha ācāryas.

301 The reasons for interpreting anukampādāna to a kupātra or apātra as an acceptable and even meritorious act are discussed by Puùkarmuni (1977: 504). 302 òhāõa 10.97 distinguishes between ten forms of dāna only one of which is called dharmadāna. 303 See Flügel, forthcoming (b). The Unknown Loïkā 259

REFERENCES Primary Sources A = Loïkejī kī Huõóī, of Loïkā [?]. (Reportedly based on a Rājasthānī Ms. of Saüvat 1830 in the Rūpacanda Rāmacanda Upāśraya, Jaitāraõa.) With a dohā-style commentary of Gulābcand (Luõiyā?), written in Jaypur in 1926. Published in Caudharī 1936?: 338-430. A corrupted version of the Rājasthānī root text has been published under the title Ath Huõóī Lūïkārī Likhyate in Āñcaliyā 1937: 120-128. AB = Asūtranirākaraõ Batrīśī, of the Mūrtipūjaka Muni Bīkā. Ca. Saüvat 1527 (1470/1). Published in Jñānsundar 1936, Appendix 1, pp. 230- 233; Koñhārī 2001: 500-503. ALJ = Ath Loïkāśāh nuü Jīvan, of the Tapāgaccha Muni Kāntivijaya. Writ- ten in Pāñaõ in Saüvat 1636 (1579/60). Published in Maõilāl 1934: 161f.; Hastīmal 1995: 752-759. DC = Dayādharma Caupāī, of the Lauükāgacchīya Yati Bhānucandra. Saüvat 1587 (1521/22). Published in Jñānsundar 1936, Appendix 2, pp. 234-237. DVS = Dasaveyāliya (Daśavaikālika Sūtra), of Ārya Sayyaübhava. Edited by Ernst Leumann. And translated, with introduction and notes, by Walther Schubring. Ahmedabad: The Managers of the Sheth Anandji Kalianji, 1932. (Reprinted in: Kleine Schriften (ed. Klaus Bruhn): 109-248. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner, 1977.) – Arya Sayyanbhava’s Daśavaikālika Sūtra. Translation and Notes by Kastur Chand Lal- wani. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1973. J = Jinacariya. Translated by Hermann Jacobi as Lives of the Jinas. In: Sacred Books of the East, 22 (1884): 217-285. K = Keha nī Paramparā Chaī?, of Loïkā [?]. Ms. No. 2989, L.D. Insti- tute, Ahmedabad. A Hindī variation is published in Jeñhmal 1930: 14f. The original is published in: Mālvaõiyā 1963a: 80-82; Vārīā 1976: 127-130 with a Gujarātī translation; Hastīmal 1995: 691-693; reprinted in Jain & Kumār 2003: 537-539, with a Hindī translation pp. 118- 120. KS = “Kaóuā-Mat kī Sāmācārī”, on the basis of Śāh Kalyāõavijaya’s Kañu- kamat Paññāvalī. Saüvat 1684 (1628/9). Translated by Dundas 1999: 21f. A slightly different extract was published by Muni Jñānsundar (1936: 326-336) under the title Kaóuā-Mat Paññāvalī kā Sār. L = Luïkā nā Añhāvana Bolo, of Loïkā [?]. Ms. No. 2989, L.D. Institute, Ahmedabad. See also Mss. No. 19224 and 19225, Oriental Institute, Baroda; Ms. Rājagranthāsāra, Prācya Vidyāpīñha, Śāhajāpura (photo- graphic reproduction in: Jain & Kumār 2003, Pariśiùña). Ms. No. 260 PETER FLÜGEL

2989, L.D. Institute, published by Mālvaõiyā 1963a: 52-82; Vārīā 1976: 1-127, with a Gujarātī translation; Hastīmal 1995: 655-691; reprinted in Jain & Kumār 2003: 403-537 with a Hindī summary pp. 124-139. LH = Luïkā nī Huõóī Cauütīs Bol, of Loïkā [?]. Ms. No. 4121, L.D. Insti- tute, Ahmedabad. Extract (Loïkāśāh ke Cauütīs Bol) in Hastīmal, 1995: 648-655; reprinted in Jain & Kumār 2003: 499-503, with a Hindī summary pp. 120-123. LN = “Loïkā’s Niyamāvali”. In Gulābcand Nāncand Señh 1970: 703f. LP = Loïkāgacchīya Paññāvalī (Bābu Puraõcandjī Nahār no Bhaõóār). In Koñhārī 2001: 405-407. (First published in the Jain Śvetāmbara Conference Herald, April-June 1918, 169-171). LS = Loïkāgaccha kī Sāmācārī. In Candanākumārī 1964: 102. LTC = Luïkā nū 13 nī Carcā, of Pārśvacandrasūri of the Pārśvacandra- gaccha. Ca. 16th century CE. Mss. No. 24466, 30565, L.D. Institute, Ahmedabad. Extract (Luïkāe Pūchela 13 Praśna ane tenā Uttaro) in Hastīmal 1995: 694f.; reprinted in: Jain & Kumār 2003: 439-441, with a Hindī translation pp. 115-117. PB = Paiütīs Bol, of the Mūrtipūjaka Ācārya Ānandvīmalsūri. Saüvat 1583 (1526/7). Published in Hastīmal 1995: 582-584. PP = Pravacanaparīkùā, of Upādhyāya Dharmasāgara, 1572/3. Surat: èùabhadeva Keśaramalajī Śvetāmbara Saüstha, 1937. SC = Siddhānta Caupāī, of the Mūrtipūjaka Muni Lāvaõyasamaya. Saüvat 1543 Kārtik śukla aùñamī (5.11.1486/7). Published in Jñānsundar 1936, Appendix 1, pp. 209-227; Koñhārī 2001: 486-499. SS = Siddhānta Sāroddhāra [Caupāī], of the Kharataragaccha Upādhyāy Śrī Kamalsaüyam. Saüvat 1544 [1487]. Published in Jñānsundar 1936, Appendix 1, pp. 228f; Koñhārī 2001: 499-500. Sūy = Sūyagaóa (Sūtrakçtāïga Sūtra). Translated by Hermann Jacobi. In: Sacred Books of the East, 45 (1895): 233-435. TPS = Tapāgaccha Paññāvalī Sūtraü, of Dharmasāgara. Saüvat 1646 [1589/ 90]. Published in Darśanavijaya 1933: 41-119. Viy = Viyāhapannatti (Bhagavaī). The Fifth Anga of the Jaina Canon. Intro- duction, Critical Analysis, Commentary & Indexes. Brugge: Rijks- universiteit de Gent, 1970. òhāõa = òhāõa (Sthānāïga). Mūla Pāñha, Saüskçta Chāyā, Hindī Anuvāda tathā òippaõa. Vācana Pramukha: Ācārya Tulsī. Sampādak-Vivecaka: Muni Nathmal. Lāónūn: Jaina Viśva Bhāratī, 1976. Yś = Yogaśāstra of Hemacandra. A Twelfth Century Handbook on Śvetām- bara Jainism. Translated by Olle Qvarnström. (Harvard Oriental Se- ries, 61.) Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2002. The Unknown Loïkā 261

Secondary Sources AISJC = Akhil Bhāratīya Sthānakavāsī Jaina Kānfrens (ed.), Akhil Bhārat- varùīya Vardhamān Sthānakavāsī Jaina Śramaõ Saïghīya Samācārī. Compiled by Saubhāgyamuni “Kumud”. Dillī: Akhil Bhāratīya Varddhamaõ Sthānakavāsī Jaina Kānfrens, 1987. AMARVIJAY, Muni (ed.) 1908. “ôhūõóhak Hçday Netrāñjanaü” athavā “Sat- yārtha Candrodayāùñakam”. Amadāvād: Śrī Satyavijay Priõñing Pres māü, Śā. Sāñkulcand Harīlāle Chāùyuü. AMOLAKèúI, Muni [Ācārya] 1908/1920. Jaina Tattva Prakāś. Duliya: Amola Jñānālaya. (Fourth edition, Ahmednagar 1920.) –––– 1920. Śāstroddhara Mīmāüsā. Sākandarābād: Jaina Śāstroddhara Mudrālaya. ĀÑCALIYĀ, Dhansukhdās Hīrālāl (ed.) 1937. Śiśu Hit Śikùa. Gaïgāśahar: Dhansukhdās Hīrālāl Āñcaliyā. ASSMANN, Jan 1987. Kanon und Zensur als kultursoziologische Kategorien. In: Aleida & Jan Assman (eds.), Kanon und Zensur. Beiträge zur Archäo- logie der literarischen Kommunikation, II: 100-112. München: Wilhelm Fink. –––– 2000. Religion und kulturelles Gedächtnis. München: C. H. Beck. (English version: Cultural Memory. Ten Studies. Transl. by R. Living- stone. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2006.) Ātmānand Jain Sabhā Pañjāb 1909. “ôhūõóhakmat Parājay arthāt Phaislā Śāstrārthanāmā” tathā “Phaislā Samānā Ilākā Mahārājā Pañiyālā”. Lahaur: Ātmānand Jain Sabhā Pañjāb kī Ājñā se Ātmānand Pustak Pracār Maõóal ke Janral Sakreñarī Ajmer ke Señh Hīrācandjī Secetī ne Chapdhāyā. (Tçtīyā Vçtti. Lahaur: Jasvantrāy Jaini, 1906.) ĀTMĀRĀM, Ācārya (Vijayānanda Sūri) 1881/1954. Jainatattvādarśa. Bhāg 1 & 2. Ed. Banārsīdās Jain. Pañcam Saüskaraõ. Bambaī: Śrī Ātmānand Jaina Sabhā. –––– 1884/1903. Śrī Samyaktva Śalyoddhāra. Third edition. Hindustānī translation of the Gujarātī original. Lahore: Śrī Ātmānand Jaina Sabhā Pañjāb. –––– 1884/1908. Śrī Samyaktva Śalyoddhāra Dohā ôhūõóhak Mat ke Śalya ko Dūrakare Niradhāra Satya Nāmaim Grantha kā Samākita Śalyoddhāra. Dillī: Ātmānand Jain Pustak Pracār Maõóal. –––– 1888/1906. Ajñāna-timira-bhāskara. Bhāvnagar: Jaina Dharma Hi- tecchu Sabhā. (With the exception of the Prastāvanā to the 1st edition, cited after the 2nd edition of the Jaina Ātmānand Sabhā in Bhāvnagar, 1906). 262 PETER FLÜGEL

ĀTMĀRĀM, Ācārya [1888-90] 1916. Praśnottara-saügraha (Śrīmad-Vijayā- nanda-Sūrīśvarāj (Ātmārāmjī) Mahārājajī Kalkattā Esīāñīk Sosāiñī nā Sekreñarī ôaükñar Hornla nā Praśno nā āpelā Uttaro). Bhāvnagar: Jaina Ātmānand Sabhā Taraph thī Bhāvsār Gāõóālāl Māncand. –––– 1893/1900a. Jainamata Vçkùa. Second revised edition. Ed. Muni Vallabhvijay. Amadāvād: Śrī Ātmārām Jaina Sabhā Pañjāb. –––– 1895/1902. Tattvanirõayaprāsāda: 36 Stambha. Samśodhankarttā: Muni Vallabh Vijay. Prasiddhakarttā: Amarcand P. Parmār. Mumbaī: Induprakāś Jāīñasñāük Kaü. Lī. meü chāpkar prasiddha kiyā. –––– 1900b. Īsāī Mat Samīkùā. Bambaī: Jaina Jñāna Prasārak Maõóal. ĀTMĀRĀM, Upādhyāy 1914. Śrīmad Jainācārya Śrī 1008 Amarasiïha kā Jīvan Caritra. Lāhaur: Pañjāb Ekāntomīkal Yantrālay. –––– 1942. Sthānakavāsī. Ludhiyānā: Lālā Valāyatī Rām Kastūrī Lāl Jain. BAGASARĀVĀìĀ, Rāma Deva Maóīā 1894. Loïkāgacchotpatti ane Mahārāja Śrīpūjya Bhaññāraka Kalyāõa Candrajī Surīśvarjī nuü Jīvana Caritra. Mumbaī Ghī Royal Prīõñīïg Pres Bāhārakoña Bhājīpālā Len. (Re- printed with additions as Loïkāgacchotpatti ane Upāśraya nā Praõetā Pūjya Ācārya Śrī Kalyāõacandrajī Sūriśvarjī nuü Jīvana Caritra. Mumbaī: Śrī Mumbaī Loïkāgaccha Jaina Saïgha. Upāśraya nā Śatābdi Mahotsava Prasaïge Sabhāsado ne Bheña, 11.3.2001.) BALBIR, Nalini 1993. Āvaśyaka-Studien, I: Introduction générale et traductions. (Alt- und Neuindische Studien, 45.1.) Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag. –––– 2001. La question de l’ordination des enfants en milieu jaina. In: Christine Chojnacki (ed.), Les âges de la vie dans le monde Indien: 153-182. Paris: Diffusion de Boccard. –––– 2002/2003a. Samayasundara’s Sāmācārī-Śataka. In: Piotr Balcerowicz (ed.), Caturaranayacakram. Essays in Jaina Philosophy and Religion: 253-277. (First Indian edition: Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.) –––– 2003b. The A(ñ)calagaccha viewed from inside and from outside. In: Olle Qvarnström (ed.), Jainism and Early Buddhism. Essays in Honor of Padmanabh S. Jaini: 47-77. Fremont: Asian Humanities Press. BHAöôĀRĪ, Kesarīcand 1938. Sthānakavāsī Jaina Itihās. Amadāvād: Śrī Sthā- nakavāsī Jaina Kāryālay. BHĀRILL, Śobhācandra (ed.) 1965. Muni Śrī Hajārīmal Smçti Granth. Byāvar: Muni Śrī Hajārīmal Smçti Granth Prakāśan Samiti. BLOCH, Maurice. 1977/1989. The past and the present in the present. In: Ritual, History and Power. Selected Papers in Anthropology: 1-18. London: The Athlone Press. BOURDIEU, Pierre 1980/1992. The Logic of Practice. Translated by Richard Nice. London: Polity Press. The Unknown Loïkā 263

BRUHN, Klaus 1981. Āvaśyaka-Studies I. In: Klaus Bruhn & Albrecht Wezler (eds.), Studien zum Jainismus und Buddhismus (Gedenkschrift für Ludwig Alsdorf): 11-49. Universität Hamburg: Steiner Verlag. –––– 1983. Repetition in Jain narrative literature. Indologica Taurinensia 11: 27-75. –––– 1987. Das Kanonproblem bei den Jainas. In: Aleida & Jan Assmann (eds.), Kanon und Zensur. Beiträge zur Archäologie der literarischen Kommunikation, II: 100-112. München: Wilhelm Fink. BUDHMAL, Muni. Terāpanth kā Itihās. Dvitīya Khaõó. Saüpādak: Muni Su- meramal ‘Sudarśan’ & Muni Mohanlāl ‘Śārdūl’. Calcutta: Jain Śve- tāmbar Terāpanth Mahāsabhā Prakāśan, 2001. BŪòERĀY, Muni 1878. Muhapatti Viùe Cārcā. Racnār Śuddha Mārg nā Rāgī Śrī Būñerāyjī Mahārāj Temnā Carītra Sāthe. Amadāvād: Māõekcok āgal Kāgadīol nā sāme Śā. Hīrābhāi Puñjāsānā Makān māü Amadāvād òāims Pres māü Kālīdās Sāïkalcand chāpī prasiddha karī. CANDANĀKUMĀRĪ, Mahāsatī 1964. Hamārā Itihās. Sthānakavāsī Śramaõ- Sāüskçtik Paramparā kā Paricāyak. Sampādak: Ācārya Śrī Amçt- kumār. Ahmadnagar: Śrī Tilok Ratna Sthānakavāsī Jaina Dhārmik Parīkùā Boró. CARRITHERS, Michael 1990. Jainism and Buddhism as enduring historical streams. Journal of the Anthropological Society of Oxford 21.2: 141- 163. –––– 2000, On polytropy: Or the natural condition of spiritual cosmo- politanism in India: The Digambar Jain case. Modern Asian Studies 34.4: 831-861. CARRITHERS, Michael & Caroline HUMPHREY (eds.) 1991. The Assembly of Listeners. Jains in Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CAUDHARĪ, Kastūrcand Sūrajmal (ed.) 1936? Jinjñān Ratnākar. Kalkattā: Mahāland Bayed “Osvāl Pres”. CHOPRA, Chogmal 1937/1945. A Short History of the Terapanthi Sect of the Swetambar Jains and its Tenets. 4th Edition. Calcutta: Sri Jain Swe- tamber Terapanthi Sabha. CORT, John E. 1989. Liberation and Wellbeing. A Study of the Mūrtipūjak Jains of North Gujarat. Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University. –––– 1990. Models of and for the study of the Jains. Method & Theory in the Study of Religion 2.1: 42-71. –––– 1991. The Śvetāmbar Mūrtipūjak Jain mendicant. Man (N.S.) 26: 651- 671. –––– 1995. Genres of Jain history. Journal of Indian Philosophy 23: 469- 506. 264 PETER FLÜGEL

CORT, John E. 2001. Jains in the World. Religious Values and Ideology in India. New York: Oxford University Press. DALMIA, Vasudha, Angelika MALINAR & Martin CHRISTOF (eds.) 2001/2003. Charisma & Canon. Essays on the Religious History of the Indian Subcontinent. Delhi: Oxford University Press. DARŚANAVIJAYA, Muni (col.) 1933. Paññāvalī Samuccayaþ. Prathamo Bhāgaþ. Vīramgām: Cāritra Smārak Granthamālā. (Reprinted by the Jinaśāsana Ārādhanā òrusñ in Mumbaī in 1996.) DAYANAND Sarasvati, Svami 1882/1908. Satyartha Prakash. Translated into English by Durga Prasad. Lahore: Virjanand Press. DEŚĀĪ, Mohanlāl Dalīcand 1926-44. Jaina Gūrjar Kavio. Mumbaī: Jaina Śve- tāmbara Conference Office (Second edition: Sampādak: Jayant Koñhā- rī. Bhāg 1-5. Mumbaī: Śrī Mahāvīra Jaina Vidyalaya, 1988.) ôOŚĪ, Ratanlāl 1939. Loïkāśāh Mat-Samarthan. Hindī Anuvād. Jodhpur: Jaina Ratna Pustakālay. (Hindī translation of Jīvaõlāl Bhāī’s Gujarātī translation of lost Hindī original revised by the author.) (Reprint Byāvar: Akhil Bhāratīya Sudharma Jaina Saüskçti Rakùak Saïgh, Jodhpur, 2002.) DUGGAR, Hīrālāl 1989. Madhya Eśiyā aur Pañjāb meü Jainadharma. Dillī: Jaina Prācīn Sāhitya Prakāśan Mandir. DUNDAS, Paul 1993. The marginal monk and the true tīrtha. In: Rudy Smet & Kenji Watanabe (eds.), Jain Studies in Honour of Jozef Deleu: 237- 259. Tokyo: Hon-no-Tomosha. –––– 1996. Somnolent sūtras: Scriptural commentary in Śvetāmbara Jain- ism. Journal of Indian Philosophy 24: 73-101. –––– 1998. Becoming Gautama: Mantra and history in Śvetāmbara Jainism. In: John E. Cort (ed.), Open Boundaries. Jain Communities and Cul- ture in Indian History: 31-52. Albany: SUNY. –––– 1999. Jainism without monks? The case of Kaóuā Śāh. In: N. K. Wagle & O. Qvarnström (eds.), Approaches to Jain Studies. Philoso- phy, Logic, Rituals and Symbols: 19-35. Toronto: University of To- ronto, Center for South Asian Studies. –––– 2001. History in future mode: A nineteenth century Digambara Jain prophetic text. In: Jayendra Soni (ed.), Vasantagauravam. Essays in Jainism: 51-72. Mumbai: Vakils, Feffer & Simons. –––– 2002. The Jains. Second revised edition. London: Routledge. FARQUHAR, J. N. 1915. Modern Religious Movements in India. New York: Macmillan. FLÜGEL, Peter 1995-96. The ritual circle of the Terāpanth Śvetāmbara Jains. Bulletin d’Études Indiennes 13: 117-176. The Unknown Loïkā 265

FLÜGEL, Peter 2000. Protestantische und Post-Protestantische Jaina-Reform- bewegungen: Zur Geschichte und Organisation der Sthānakavāsī I. Berliner Indologische Studien 13/14: 37-103. –––– 2003a. Protestantische und Post-Protestantische Jaina-Reformbeweg- ungen: Zur Geschichte und Organisation der Sthānakavāsī II. Berliner Indologische Studien 15/16/17: 149-240. (Also published on line: http://eprints.soas.ac.uk/view/subjects/1500.html). –––– 2003b. The codes of conduct of the Terāpanth Samaõ order. South Asia Research 23.1: 7-53. –––– 2005. The invention of Jainism: A short history of Jaina studies. Jour- nal of Jaina Studies (Kyoto) 11: 1-19. (Also: International Journal of Jain Studies 1, http://www.soas.ac.uk/ijjs). –––– , forthcoming (a). Protestantische und Post-Protestantische Jaina-Re- formbewegungen: Zur Geschichte und Organisation der Sthānakavāsī III. Berliner Indologische Studien 18. –––– , forthcoming (b). Protestantische und Post-Protestantische Jaina-Re- formbewegungen: Zur Geschichte und Organisation der Sthānakavāsī IV. –––– , forthcoming (c). The Loïkāgaccha revisited. Paper presented at the 12th World Sanskrit Conference in Helsinki, July 2003, and at the 6th Jaina Studies Workshop at SOAS, March 2004. GADAMER, Hans-Georg 1960/1990. Wahrheit und Methode. Grundzüge einer philosophischen Hermeneutik. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck). GHĀSĪLĀL, Ācārya 1983. Śrī Loükāśāha Caritam. Niyojaka: Muni Kanhaiyā- lāl. Ahmadāvād: Akhila Bhāratīya Śvetāmbara Sthānakavāsī Jaina Śāstradvāra Samiti Pramukha Baladevabhāī ôosābhāī Pañel. GLASENAPP, H. von. 1925. Der Jainismus – Eine Indische Erlösungsreligion. (Kultur und Weltanschauung, 1.) Berlin: A. Hager. GOMBRICH, Richard 1988. Theravāda Buddhism. A Social History from Ancient Benares to Modern Colombo. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. GOONASEKERE, Ratna Sunilsantha Abhayawardana 1986. Renunciation and Monasticism among the Jainas of India. Ph.D. dissertation. San Diego: University of California. GRANOFF, Phyllis 1991. The politics of religious biography: The biography of Balibhadra the Usurper. Bulletin d’Études Indiennes 9: 75-91. –––– 1993. Going by the Book: The role of written texts in medieval Jain sectarian conflicts. In: R. Smet & K. Watanabe (eds.), Jain Studies in Honour of Jozef Deleu: 315-338. Tokyo: Hon-no-Tomosha. GUöSUNDAR, Muni 1938. Ādarś Jñān. Śrīmān Jñānsundarjī Mahārāj Sāhib kā Ādarś-Jīvan. Bhāg 1-2. Jodhpur (?). 266 PETER FLÜGEL

HASTĪMAL, Ācārya 1968. Paññāvalī Prabandh Saïgrah. Ed. Narendra Bhana- wat. Jaypur: Jaina Itihāsa Nirmāõ Samiti. –––– 1971. Jaina Ācārya Caritāvalī (Jaina Ācārya Paramparā kā Kāvya- baddha Rūpa). Ed. Gajasiïha Rāñhoç. Jaypur: Jaina Itihās Samiti. –––– 1987/1995. Jaina Dharma kā Maulik Itihās, IV. Jaypur: Jaina Itihās Samiti. JACOBI, Hermann 1880. Das Kālakācārya-Kathānakam. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 34: 247-298. JAIN, Jiyālāl 1893. Carcā Candroday Bhāg Tisrā. Ahmadāvād: Yuniyan Priõñiïg. JAIN, Jyotindra & Eberhard FISCHER 1978. Jaina Iconography, I-II. Leiden: E.J. Brill. JAIN, Kamleś Kumār 2003. Jaina Uddharaõa Kośa. Bhāg I. Dillī: Bhogīlāl Leharcand Bhāratīya Saüskçti Saüsthān. JAIN, Mohanlāl 1892. Durvād Mukh-Capeñikā. Lāhaur: Eïglo Saüskçt Yantrā- lay. JAIN, Pannālāl L. 1913/1923. Jainācārya Śrī 1008 Śrīmatī Pārvatījī ke Jīvan Caritra. Pratham Bhāg & Dvitīya Bhāg. Hindī Anuvād: Dayācandra Jain. Lāhaur: Candra Lakhanpāl. (1st Edition in Urdū.) JAIN, Sāgarmal & Vijay KUMĀR 2003. Sthānakavāsī Jaina Paramparā kā Iti- hās. Vārāõasī: Pārśvanāth Vidyāpīñh. JAIN, Śrīnāth Modī 1929. Muni Śrī Jñānsundarjī. Jodhpur: Rājasthān Sundar Sāhitya Sadan. JAYDAYĀL, Lālā, n.d. ôhuõóhak Mat Samīkùā. (Photocopy without bibliographic references.) JEòHMAL, Muni 1882/1930. Samakit-Sār I-II. Prabodhak: Tapasvīrāj Śrī Dev- jīçùi. Prakāśak: Śrīmān Sardārmal Pugaliā, Nāgpur, Śrīmān Ratanlāl Pīrcand Pārasevanī evam Barār Jaina Śrīmān. Caturtha Saüskaraõ. Hindī Anuvād: Rastabcand. Ratlām: Jainoday Pustak Prakāśak Samiti. JHAUHARĪ, Durlabh Trībhuvan. 1922/1923. Śrīlāljī Mahārāj kā Sacitra Jīvan- caritra. Morvī-Jaipur: Durlabh Trībhuvan Jhauharī. JÑĀNSUNDAR, Muni 1936. Śrīmad Lauükāśāh. Phalodī: Śrī Jñān Puùpamālā. KĀNTISĀGAR, Muni 1965. Śrī Loïkāśāh kī Paramparā aur uskā Ajñāt Sāhitya. In: Śobhācandra Bhārill (ed.), Muni Śrī Hajārīmal Smçti Granth: 214- 253. Byāvar: Muni Śrī Hajārīmal Smçti Granth Prakāśan Samiti. KĀPAôIĀ, Hīrālāl Rasikdās. A History of the Canonical Literature of the Jainas. Surat: Hiralal Rasikdas Kapadia, 1941. (Reprint: Ahmedabad: Shree Shwetambar Murtipujak Jaina Boarding, 2000.) The Unknown Loïkā 267

KELTING, Mary Whitney 2001. Singing to the Jinas. Jain Laywomen, Maõóal Singing, and the Negotiations of Jain Devotion. Oxford: Oxford University Press. KHĀN, Ālamśāh 1965. Loïkāgaccha kī Sāhitya-Sevā. In: Śobhācandra Bhārill (ed.), Muni Śrī Hajārīmal Smçti Granth: 203-213. Byāvar: Muni Śrī Hajārīmal Smçti Granth Prakāśan Samiti. KIRAöYAŚĀSTRĪ, Mahārāj 1999. Śrī Vijayānandjī ke Vāóam kā Vihaïgāva- lokaõa. Baçaudā: Mahilā Jaina Upāśray. KLATT, Johannes 1888. Eine apokryphe Paññāvalī der Jainas. In: Festgruss an Otto von Böhtlingk zum Doktor-Jubiläum 3. Februar 1888 von seinen Freunden: 54-59. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer. –––– Onomasticon. Bound copy. 8 vols. Hamburg: Institut für Indologie und Tibetologie. KOòHĀRĪ, Jayant 2001. Prācīn Madhyakālīn Sāhitya Samgraha (Mohanlāl Dalīcand Desāī Sampādit Laghukçti Saügraha). Ahmedabad: L.D. In- stitute of Indology. [See AB, LP, SC and SS under Primary sources.] KUNDANMAL, Muni 1908. Pragañ Jain Pītāmbarī Mūrtipūjakoü kā Mithyātva. Amarāvatī. Mūlcand Jugrāj. (The short stavan is reprinted in Amar- vijay 1908: 34-36.) –––– , n.d. Ātmārām Saüvegī kī Karttūt, Ātmārām kī Ādāt kā Namūnā. Ambālā: Paõóit Bhīmasena. LAIDLAW, James 1985. Profit, salvation and profitable saints. Cambridge Anthropology 9.3: 50-70. –––– 1995. Riches and Renunciation. Religion, Economy, and Society among the Jains. Oxford: Clarendon Press. LĀLAS, Padmaśrī Sītārām (ed.) 1986-87. Rājasthānī-Hindī Saïkùipt Śabda Koś, I-II. Rājasthān Purātan Granthamālā. Prabandh Sampādak: Padmadhar Pāñhak. Jodhpur: Rājasthān Prācyavidyā Pratiùñhān. LESLIE, Julia 2003. Authority and Meaning in Indian Religions. Hinduism and the Case of Vālmīki. Hants: Ashgate. LEUMANN, Ernst 1934. Übersicht über die Āvaśyaka Literatur. Aus dem Nach- lass herausgegeben von Walther Schubring. (Alt- und Neuindische Studien, 4.) Hamburg: De Gruyter. MĀDHAV, Muni 1908. Taraïgiõī Dvitīyā Taraïg. Āgrā. (Reprinted in Amarvijay 1908: 31-34.) MAHĀPRAJÑA, Ācārya 2000. Jainism and Its Philosophical Foundations. New Delhi: Anmol Publications. MALUKCAND, Anūpcand 1908. “Praśnottara-ratna-cintāmaõī” aur “Añhārah Dūùaõa-nivāraka”. Ahmadābād: Rāy Bahādur Bābu Buddhasiïghjī. 268 PETER FLÜGEL

MĀLVAöIYĀ, Dalsukhbhāī 1963a. Śrī Loïkāśāh nī ek Kçti. Svādhyāya 2.1: 50- 82. –––– 1963b. Śrī Lokāśāh ane temnā Mat. Svādhyāya 2.2: 143-155. –––– 1964. Lokāśāh aur unkī Vicār-Dhārā. In: Vijay Muni Śāstri & Harīśankar Śarmā (eds.), Gurudev Śrī Ratna Muni Smçti-Granth: 365- 383. Āgrā: Gurudev Smçti Granth Prakāśak Samiti. –––– 1965. Loïkāśāh Mat kī Do Pothiyāü. In: Śobhācandra Bhārill (ed.), Muni Śrī Hajārīmal Smçti Granth: 184-188. Byāvar: Muni Śrī Hajārī- mal Smçti Granth Prakāśan Samiti. MAöILĀL, Muni 1934. Śrī Jaina Dharma no Prācīn Saïkùipt Itihās ane Prabhu Vīr Paññāvalī. Amadāvād: Jīvaõlāl Chaganlāl Saïghvī. METTE, Adelheid 1974. Piõó’esaõā. Das Kapitel der Oha-Nijjutti über den Bettelgang übersetzt und kommentiert. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner. MIŚRĪMAL, Mantrī Muni “Marudhar Kesarī” 1936. Dharmavīr Loïkāśāh. òāõñoñī/Ajmer: Jaina Śvetāmbara Sthānakavāsī Sakal Śrī Saïgh òāõñoñī. –––– 1941. Krāntikārī Vīr Loïkāśāh. Jodhpur Sñeñ: Jaina Buddhavīr Smārak Maõóal. –––– 1946. Vīr Loïkāśāh. Prakāśak: Śāh Mukancand Nemīcand Bahorā Jain. Jodhpur: Jaina Buddhavīr Smārak Maõóal. NAHAR, Puran Chand. 1918/1983. Jaina Inscriptions. Delhi: Indian Book Gal- lery. NĀHAòĀ, Agarcand 1958. Kaóuā Mat kī Mānyatāoü par Prakāś. Jaina Bhāratī 6.2: 19f. –––– 1964. Uttarārdha Gaccha. Jaina Bhāratī 12.9. –––– 1966. Nāgorī Loïkāgaccha ke Sthāpak Hīrāsāh aur Rūpcand. Jinavāõī 15: 2-4. –––– 1968. Bhūmikā. In: Ācārya Hastīmal, Paññāvalī Prabandh Saïgrah (Ed. Narendra Bhanawat): 33-39. Jaypur: Jaina Itihāsa Nirmāõ Samiti. NĀHAòĀ, Bhanvarlāl 1957. Luïkāśāh aur unke Anuyāyī. In: Agarcand Nāhañā et al. (eds.), Śrīmad Rājendrasūri Smārak Granth: 470-477. Āhora tathā Bāgarā (Mārvāç): Śrī Saudharmabçhattapāgacchīya Jaina Śve- tāmbara Śrī Saïgh. NĀHAòĀ, Kuüvar Lālcandra “Taruõ”. 1968. Lauükāśāh: Vyaktitva aur Vicār. In: Śobhācandra Bhārill (ed.), Marudhar Kesarī Muni Miśrīmaljī Mahārāj Abhinandan Granth: 159-168. Jodhpur: Marudhar Kesarī Abhinandan Granth Prakāśan Samiti. NAIR, V. G. 1970. Jainism and Terehpanthism. Bangalore: Shri Adinath Jain Svetambar Temple, 1970. The Unknown Loïkā 269

PĀRVATĪ, Mahāsatī 1905a. “Satyārtha-Candroday Jaina” arthāt “Mithyātva Timir-Nāśak”. Jis ko Sanātan Satya Jaina Dharmopadeśikā Bāl Brahmacāriõī Jaināryyājī Śrī Mahāsatī Pārvatījī ne banāyā. Lāhaur: Lālā Meharcandra Lakùmīdās Śrāvak. –––– 1905b. “Samyaktva Sūryoday Jaina” arthāt “Mithyātva Timir Nāśak”. Jis ko Jainācāryya Pañjābī Śrī 1008 Śrī Parampūjya Amara- siïhajī kī Sampradāya meü Sanātan Satya Jaina Dharmopadeśikā Bāl Brahmacāriõī Jainācāryyājī Śrīmat Śrī 1008 Satījī Śrī Pārvatījī ne banāyā. Hośīārpur: Lālā Kçpārām Koñūmal Śrāvak. (Second edition: Rohtak: Jyotrām Señh kī Dharmapatnī Lā. Śerasiïha.) PRAKĀŚCANDRA, Muni 1998. Ā Che Aõagār Amārā. Mumbaī: Śrī Naval Sā- hitya Prakāśan Maõóal. PUúKARMUNI, Upādhyāy 1977. Jain Dharma meü Dān. Ek Samīkùātmak Adhyayan. Sampādak: Devendramuni & Śrīcand Surānā ‘Sarat’. Agra: Śrī Tārakguru Jaina Granthālay. QVARNSTRÖM, Olle 1998. Stability and adaptability: A Jain strategy for survival and growth. Indo-Iranian Journal 41: 33-55. ŚĀH, Praviõcand Tulsīdās 2001. Dharma Priya Krāntivīr Lokāśāh nuü Jīvan Caritra (Saïkùep). Mumbaī: Śrī Mumbaī Loïkāgaccha Jaina Saïgha. ŚĀH, Vāóīlāl Motīlāl 1909. Śrī Sādhumārgī Jaina Dharmānuyāyīoe Jāõvā Jog Keñalīk Aitihāsik Noüdh. Amadāvād: “Jaina Samācār”. –––– 1925. Aitihāsik Noüdh. Hindī Anuvād, Mulatānmal Hīrācand Dhārī- vāl. Ratan Rāypur C. P.: Jaina Pāñhśālā ke Sahāya Tīrth. SARLĀ, Sādhvī 1991. Sthānakvāsī Pañjāb Sampradāy kī Pramukha Sādhviyāü. [Extract of: Sādhanā Path kī Amar Sāhikā.] In: Hīrābāī Boradiyā, Jainadharma kī Pramukh Sādhviyāü evaü Mahilāeü: 298-304. Sam- pādak: Sāgarmal Jain. Vārāõasī: Pārśvanāth Vidyāśram Śodha Saü- sthān. ŚĀSTRĪ, Hansrāj 1915. Svāmī Dayānand aur Jainadharma. Gopipura/Surat: Paõóit Hansrāj Śāstrī. SAUBHĀGYACANDRA, Muni “Santabāëa” 1939. Dharmaprāõ-Loïkāśāh (Krānti no Yugasçùñā). Amadāvād: Sthānakavāsī Jaina Kāryālay. (First published in Jaina Prakāś 1935.) SCHUBRING, Walther 1935/2000. Die Lehre der Jainas. Nach der alten Quellen dargestellt. (Grundriss der Indo-Arischen Philologie und Altertums- kunde, 3.7.) Berlin: Walter De Gruyter & Co. [Cited after the English translation: The Doctrine of the Jainas. Described after the Old Sources. Transl. Wolfgang Beurlen. 3rd English edition. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.] –––– 1944. Die Jaina-Handschriften der Preussischen Staatsbibliothek. Leipzig: Otto Harrassowitz. 270 PETER FLÜGEL

SCHUBRING, Walther 1957. Kundakunda echt und unecht. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 107: 537-574. SEòH, Gulābcand Nāncand 1970. Jaydhvaj. Pūjya Ācārya Jaymaljī Mahārāj kā Jīvan Caritra. Madrās: Jaydhvaj Prakāśan Samiti. ŚEòH, Nagīndās Girdharlāl 1962. Mūë Jaina Dharma ane Hāl nā Sampradāyo. Mumbaī: Jaina Siddhānta Sabhā. –––– (ed.) 1963. Sthānakavāsī Jaino nuü Dharma Kartavya. Satya Dharma Samāj vā Icchanāra ne Māñe Ja. Jaina Siddhānta Granthamāëā Aïko 49 Mo. Mumbaī: Jaina Siddhānta Sabhā (Rajīsñaró) nī Vatī Śeñh Nagīndās Girdharlāl. [Includes chapters 7-13 and 22-26 of Śeñh’s Mūë Jaina Dharma ane Hāl nā Sampradāyo: E Pustak māü nā Ahīü Umerelā Mūrti ne Lagtā Prakaraõo.] –––– 1964. Loïkāśāh ane Dharmacarcā. SHAH, Umakant Premanand 1955a. Studies in Jaina Art. Varanasi: Pārśvanātha Vidyāpīñha. –––– 1955b. A forgotten chapter in the history of the Svetambara Jaina church, or, a documentary epigraph from Mount Satrunjaya. Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bombay 30: 100-113. SHĀNTĀ, N. 1985/1997. La voie Jaina. histoire, spiritualité, vie des ascètes pèlerines de l'Inde. Paris: O.E.I.L. (English version: The Unknown Pilgrims. The Voice of the Sādhvīs: The History, Spirituality and Life of the Jaina Women Ascetics. Transl. by M. Rogers. (Sri Garib Dass Oriental Series, 219.) Delhi: Shri Satguru Publications, 1997.) SMITH, Wilfred Cantwell. 1962/1991. The Meaning and End of Religion. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. SURĀNĀ, Śrīcand “Saras” 1976. Mahāprajña Pravartak Śrī Pannālāljī Mahā- rāj. Jīvan, Vyaktitva aur Kçtitva. Vijaynagar/Rājasthān: Śrī Prajña Jaina Smārak Samiti. SUŚĪLKUMĀR, Ācārya 1959. Jainadharma kā Itihās (Pramukhtaç Śrī Śvetām- bara Sthānakavāsī Jainadharma kā Itihās). Kalkattā: Samyag Jñān- Mandir. UJAMCAND, Rikhabcand (Mumbaī) 1909. Sthānakavāsī Sādhumārgī Satyatā Ūpar Kuhāóo. Urphe. Bhī. Vāóīlāl-kçt Aitihāsik Khoñī Noüdh Upar òīkā. Bhāg 1. Amadāvād: Eïglo Varnākyular Priõñīïg. VALLABHVIJAY, Muni (ed.) 1891. ôhuõóçak-hita-śikùā Apanām Gappa-dīpikā- samīr. Amadāvād: Śrī Jainadharma Prasārak Sanā. Nāvnagar. –––– 1902. Tapāgaccha Ācārya Śrīmad Vijayānandasūriśvarjī Prasiddha nām Ātmārāmjī Mahārājjī Jainī Sādhu kā Janmacaritra. In: Ācārya Ātmārām (Vijayānanda Sūri), Tattvanirõayaprāsāda: 36 Stambha: 33-83. Samśodhankarttā: Muni Vallabh Vijay. Prasiddhakarttā: Amar- The Unknown Loïkā 271

cand P. Parmār. Mumbaī: Induprakāś Jāīñasñāük Kaü. Lī. meü Chāp- kar Prasiddha kiyā. –––– 1909. Javābdāvā. Jain Samācār ôhūõóhak Patrādhipati kī Pūkār kā Javāb. Written in Pālaõpur, Gujarāt. Lāhaur: Jasvantrāy Jaini. –––– 1996. Navyug Nirmātā (Nyāyāmbhonidhi Ācārya Śrīmad Vijayānand Sūri (Ātmārāmjī) Mahārāj kī Jīvan Gāthā). Dvitīya Saüskaraõ. Pāvā- gaóh Tīrtha: Vijayānand Sūri Sāhitya Prakāśan Phāuõóeśan. Varddhamāna Sthānakavāsī Jaina Śrāvaka Saïgha, Jaypur (ed.) 1964. Ajmer Śikhar Sammelan meü Saüśodhit evaü Pārit – Varddhamān Sthāna- kavāsī Jaina Śramaõ Saïgh ke Prastāv, Vidhān evaü Sāmācārī. Jaypur: Mantrī, Varddhamāna Sthānakavāsī Jaina Śrāvaka Saïgha. VĀRĪĀ, Ratanśī 1976. Dharma Prāõ Śrī Loïkāśāh nā Aññhāvan Bol. Jāmnagar: Lālbāg (Ratanśī Vārīā). WEBER, Albrecht 1882. Über den Kupakshakauçikāditya des Dharmasāgara. Streitschrift eines orthodoxen Jaina, vom Jahre 1573. In: Sitzungs- berichte der Königlich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin 37: 793-814. WILLIAMS, Ronald. 1963/1983: Jaina Yoga. A Survey of the Medieval Śrāvakā- cāras. London: Oxford University Press. WUJASTYK, Dominik 1984. The spikes in the ears of an ascetic: an illustrated tale in Brahmanism and Jainism. Oriental Art (N.S.) 30: 189-194. 272 PETER FLÜGEL

APPENDIX I: Keha nī Paramparā Chai – Text in Old Gujarātī304 paramparā likhīiü chaiü, ketalā eka ima kahai chai śrī vīra nī paramparā ima kahai chai, te kihāü chai.305

1. ghariü pratimā ghaóāvī maõóāvai chai, te keha nī paramparā chai?306 – celā celī vecānā leī teha keha nī paramparā chai?307 2. nānhā chokarā nai308 dīkùā dii chai, te keha nī paramparā chai? 3. nāma309 pheravai chai, te keha nī paramparā chai? 4. kāüna vadhārai chai, te keha nī paramparā chai? 5. khamāsamāsaõa310 viharai chai, te keha nī paramparā chai? 6. gçhastha (nī) gharaiü baisī311 viharai, te keha nī paramparā chai? 7. dīhāóī dīhāóī312 2 teõai313 ghariü viharai, te keha nī paramparā chai?

304 Text based on L.D. Institute Ms. 2989, pp. 14b-15a. 305 The meaning (vivaraõa) of this sentence has been given by Vārīā (1976: 127) as follows: have paramparā lakhīie chīe. keñalāk ema kahe che ke vīra prabhue ā rīte paramparā kahī che.śrī loïkāśāha praśna kare che ke ā param- parā kayāü śāstro māü kahīi che te batāvo. The text was reproduced verbatim by Hastīmal (1995) (and Jain & Kumār 2003), which shows that the subsequently published versions are all based on Vārīā’s transcription. 306 Vārīā’s (1976: 127) reproduction of the text uses the past tense here and in the following question: “te keha nī paramparā thai”. Since the L.D. Institute Ms. No. 2989 uses the present tense, I have amended the printing mistakes in the published version in these two cases. 307 This sentence has been left out in all published versions of L.D. Institute Ms. No. 2989, probably because it is regarded as too controversial. 308 Hastīmal 1995: 691: chokaranaiü. 309 Hastīmal 1995: 691 added in brackets: (dīkùa kāle). 310 Hastīmal 1995: 691: khamāsamāsaõu. 311 Hastīmal 1995: 692: baisi. 312 Hastīmal 1995: 692: dīhāçī and added in brackets: (pratidin). 313 Hastīmal 1995: 692 added in brackets: (usī ek). The Unknown Loïkā 273

8. aïghola314kahai315 kare,316 te keha nī paramparā chai? 9. jyotiùa nai marma prajuüjai chai, te keha nī paramparā chai? 10. kalavāõī karī āpai chai, te keha nī paramparā chai? 11. nagara māhiü paisatā paiü sāru sāhamuü karāvai chai, te keha nī paramparā chai? 12. lāóūā pratiùñai317 chai, te keha nī paramparā chai? 13. pothī pūjāvai chai, te keha nī paramparā chai? 14. saïghapūjā karavai chai, te keha nī paramparā chai? 15. pratiùñā karai chai, te keha nī paramparā chai? 16. pajūsaõaiü pothī āpai chai, te keha nī paramparā chai? 17. tathā yātrā vecai chai, te keha nī paramparā chai? 18. tathā mātra āpai chai, te keha nī paramparā chai? 19. tathā ghāñaóī donuü toraõa318 bāüghai chai, te keha nī paramparā chai? 20. ādhākarma posāliü rahai chai, te keha nī paramparā chai? 21. siddhānta prabhāvanā pākhai na vāücai, te keha nī paramparā chai? 22. māõóavī karāvai chai, te keha nī paramparā chai? 23. gautama paóagho319 karāvai chai, te keha nī paramparā chai? 24. saüsāra-tāraõa karāvai chai, te keha nī paramparā chai? 25. candanabālā nu tapa karāvai chai, te keha nī paramparā chai? 26. sonā rūpā nī nīsaraõī karāvai chai, te keha nī paramparā chai? 27. lākhāpaóavi karāvai chai, te keha nī paramparā chai?

314 Hastīmal 1995: 692 added in brackets: (snān). 315 Hastīmal 1995: 692 added in brackets: (koī). 316 Hastīmal 1995: 692: karai. 317 Hastīmal 1995: 692: pratiùñhaĩ. 318 Hastīmal 1995: 692: ghāñaçī and added in brackets: (vanaspati ke toraõ). 319 Hastīmal 1995: 692: paçagho. 274 PETER FLÜGEL

28. ūjamaõā320 óhovarāvai chai, te keha nī paramparā chai? 29. pūja pūóhāiü chai, te keha nī paramparā chai? 30. āsovçkùa bharāvi321 chai, te keha nī paramparā chai? 31. aññhottarī sanātra karāvi chai, te keha nī paramparā chai? 32. navā ghāna navā phala pratimā āgali óhoi chai, te keha nī paramparā chai? 33. śrāvaka-śrāvikā nai māthai vāsa ghālai chai, te keha nī paramparā chai? 34. parigraha óhūõóha māü bāüdhai chai, te keha nī paramparā chai? 35. śrāvaka pāīü mūõóakuü apāvī óuïgara caóhāvī322 chai, te keha nī paramparā chai? 36. mālāropaõa karai chai, te keha nī paramparā chai? 37. padīka śrāvaka śrāvikā suü bhelī jāiü chai, te keha nī paramparā chai? 38. nāndi maõóāvai chai, te keha nī paramparā chai? 39. padīka cāïka bāüdhai chai, te keha nī paramparā chai? 40. pāõi māhiü bhūko323 muükai chai, te keha nī paramparā chai? 41. vāndaõā divarāvai324 chai, te keha nī paramparā chai? 42. oghā pheravai chai, te keha nī paramparā chai? 43. devadravya rākhai chai, te keha nī paramparā chai? 44. pagai lāgai nīcī pacheóī oóhai chai, te keha nī paramparā chai? 45. sūrimantra leiīü iü chai,325 te keha nī paramparā chai? 46. dīhāóī sūrimantra gaõai chai, te keha nī paramparā chai?

320 Hastīmal 1995: 692: ūüjamaõ«. 321 Vāriā 1976: 129: bharāvaĩ. 322 Hastīmal 1995: 693: dūïgara caóhāvaĩ. 323 Vāriā 1976: 129: bhūüko muükai; Hastīmal 1995: 693: bhūüko mukai. 324 Hastīmal 1995: 693: dirāvai. 325 Vāriā 1976: 130: sūrimantra leīü chaĩ. The Unknown Loïkā 275

47. kalapaóā ñhañai326 chaiü, te keha nī paramparā chai ūjalā? 48. pajūsaõa māhiü bairakanhai tap karāvai chai, te keha nī paramparā chai? 49. ghaóūlā karāvai chai, te keha nī paramparā chai? 50. āübila nī olī siddhacakra nī karāvai chai, te keha nī paramparā chai? 51. mahātamā nāla327 karā pachī te ūñhamaõuü karai chai, te keha nī paramparā chai? 52. pratimā jhūlaõuü328 karāvai chai, te keha nī paramparā chai? 53. padīka āgali ñhavaõī329māõóai chai, te keha nī paramparā chai? 54. pajūsaõa parva nai cauthaiü330 paóikamai chai, te keha nī paramparā chai?

326 Vāriā 1995: 693 thañai. 327 Vāriā 1976: 130: kāla. 328 Vāriā 1976: 130: jhūlaõaü. 329 Vāriā 1976: 130: Uaübaõī. 330 Hastīmal 1995: 693: cauthanaiü paóikamai chaiü. 276 PETER FLÜGEL

APPENDIX II: Loïkā’s assertions according to Candanākumārī 1964 in Hindī

1. āgam-sammat ñīkāoü ko hī prāmāõik mānā jāy. 2. āgam ke anusār dççhatāpūrvak samyamoü jīvan vyatīt kiyā jāy. 3. dharmdçùñi se ‘pratimā-pūjan’ śāstra-sammat nahīü hai. 4. śuddha sāttvik śākāhārī pratyek kul kā āhār liyā jā saktā hai. 5. sthāpanācārya kī sthāpanā kī koī āvaśyaktā nahīü hai. 6. upavās ādi vratoü meü sabhī prakār kā prāsuk jal liyā jā saktā hai. 7. parv-tithi ke binā bhī upavās kiyā jā saktā hai. 8. sādhuoü ko mantra-tantra tathā yantra ādi vidyāoü kā prayog nahīü karnā cāhie. 9. śrāvak bhikùā kar saktā hai, par dān nahīü le saktā. 10. dayā bhāv se garīboü ko dān denā pāp nahīü hai, apitu puõya kā kāraõ hai. 11. daõó nahīü rakhā jānā cāhie. The Unknown Loïkā 277

APPENDIX III: Loïkā’s Sāmācārī according to Señh 1970 in Hindī

1. upadhān tap kiye binā bhī śāstra-abhyās karāyā jā saktā hai. 2. jin pratimā kī dharma-dçùñi se pūjā karnā 45 āgamoü meü nahīü hai. 3. mūl sūtra, āgam aur mūl śāstra, samasta ñīkāoü ke sivāy anya āgam evaü ñīkā sarvathā amānya hai. 4. vidyā kā prayog niùiddha hai. 5. pauùadh pratikramaõ svatantra rīti se karnā. 6. cāturmās ke sivāy bhī pāñ kā vyavahār jā saktā hai. 7. daõó nahīü rakhā jānā cāhiye. 8. pustakeü rakhī jā saktī haiü. 9. sātviktā aur śuddhi kā dhyān rakhte hue pratyek kul meü gocarī kī jā saktī hai. 10. śrāvak bhī gocarī kar saktā hai. 11. śrāvak dān nahīü le saktā. 12. upavās pratyākhyān meü chāch-pānī kī āch prāsuk le sakte haiü. 13. binā upavās ke bhī pauùadh kiyā jā saktā hai. 14. tithi-parv ke binā bhī upavās kiyā jā saktā hai. 15. ek sāth upavās paccakkhe jā sakte haiü. 16. kalyāõakoü ko tithi meü nahīü ginnā cāhiye. 17. jis din goras liyā jāy us din kañhor (dvidal dhānya) kā prayog nahīü honā cāhiye. 18. sthāpanācārya kī sthāpanā anāvaśyak hai. 19. dhovan pānī meü do ghaçī ke anantar jīvotpatti sambhav hai. 20. apātra ko dharma buddhi se dān dene se hiüsā hotī hai (anukampā se garīb ko denā ekānta pāp kā kāraõ nahīü hai). 278 PETER FLÜGEL

PICTURE: Loïkā nā Añhāvana Bolo, Ms. No. 2989, L.D. Institute, Ahmedabad, p. 14b

LISÄÄ KUVA ALKUPERÄISESTÄ